I'm no expert at this but from I was able to get from cisco's web site is that the router discards the packet if the control field is set to 16 or up for ipx rip. In mixed environment, with both NLSP and RIP running, the router might have routes of greater than 16 if it learnt those routes using NLSP,the important thing would be the servers' configuration. If the server supports only RIP, then obviously the hop count would still be an issue and the server would discard the RIP update with 16 and up. To take the full benefit from NLSP and its hop count enhancement I'd think one would have to run NLSP in the whole network, including the servers.
Again, i'm not experienced with IPX... ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > The IPX header has a "transport control" field which is really a "hop > count." The sender sets it to zero. Each router adds one to it. > > Novell documentation used to show it as a 4-bit field with 4 bits reserved > before it. Recent documentation shows it as an 8-bit field. Older document > ion said a router would trash a frame if it arrived with a transport > control field already at 15 (0xFFFF). Recently I read this weird thing on > Novell's site: > > A RIP router discards the packet if the value in this field is greater than > 15. > > An NLSP router discards the packet if the value in this field is greater > than the value of the Hop Count Limit parameter, which is 127 by default. > > Is this believable? From what we know about the router having two separate > tasks (forwarding and learning the topology), I think the hop-count limits > happen when installing routes. I could believe that RIP and NLSP are > different. But when a router goes to forward a frame, is it really going to > behave differently with respect to hop count if it's running NLSP versus > RIP? Does it even care which protocol installed the route. The FIB probably > wouldn't even say which protocol installed the route? > > Chuck likes to remind us about these differences so maybe he has some > comments. > > Thanks > > Priscilla > > > > > > ________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=23466&t=23389 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
