ticket 4

no passive interface fa0/24 is missing from SG


  • Seems like you have to enable v2 on router rip instead


    Anybody has any thoughts on this?

  • Mine Using


    router rip

     no passive-interface fa0/1

     version 2




    and it work fine. I guess what INE want (or missing info in here) to tell us that make sure SW3 only adjacency with BB3 or something :)


    but I'm quite sure our thought are in the right direction here :D

  • same here..had to add version 2 as BB3 only receives version 2 and plus passive-interface and ip change.

  • Hi,

    I think we don't need to use "no passive-interface f0/24" as we are unicasting the RIP updates to BB3 by using " neighbor". If you also configure "no passive-interface f0/24" SW3 will send two types of RIP updates out of interface F0/24, which are unicast and multicast. CMIIW.

    But I am not sure if in the real lab we will be penalized if we are doing this. Anyone has comment?



  • Just as Alexander says the no passive-interface is not needed towards BB3 since the neighbor command is used. If you remove passive-interface both MC and unicast will be sent. Actually it should be broadcast if version 1.

    It's impossible to say if you would loose points or not but if overconfiguring you are not fully understanding technology and therefore expect to loose points. Not sure how they grade the TS since your task is to solve the issue maybe they don't penalize in the same way as in config section.

  • In the TS section i would say the look for the exact missing commands which make the task functional. This is of course my personal opinion.

    Good luck with your studies!

  • I think there can be two solutions to this.

    1. No passive interface on int fa 0/24 on Sw 3 which will allow updates out towards bb3.  Optionally remove the bad neighbor but we aren't given any other info saying that this is or isn't supposed to be another neighbor with that address.  The question gives minimal informaiton.

    2. fix neighbor statement to point to correct ip of bb3.  Leave passive-interface default enabled and don't remove passive-interface from fa0/24 since you are unicasting and there is no need to broadcast updates to him.




  • I agree with Christian on this, so I'd prefer option 2, to fix the neighbor statement :)

  • Hi will,

       You need a clear vision of these aspects to pass the lab. I disagree with you on point 1. In the lab you have visual access to the topology, so there is no possibility to be another neighbor with that IP address. With these being said, it is clear you need to modify the neighbor statement. What i'm trying to say is that, this is the most obvious and straight forward way to solve the ticket. Hopefully and from my experience, in the lab for TS section once you find the problem you have only one option to fix it, if you have multiple read again the general and respective ticket restrictions. IF still have multiple options, choose the most direct one, related to the technology.

    Good luck with your studies!

  • I screwed this one up...  Quite embarassing, perhaps.

    However, the question said BB3 did not see any routes from SW3.

    I confirmed the BB3 was receiving routes from SW3

    However, I didn't pay attention to RIP, but did look at BGP and saw I was sending him routes.  So I beleived he was getting routes from SW3 and took no further action.

    I thought my actions in a previous unrelated task resulted in the correction of this, but was incorrect.

  • Besides changing the ip address in neigbhor statement we also need to change the version from 1 to 2 on switch3 because in the diagram its version 2 and on switch3 it is configured as version 1.

  • Besides changing the ip address in neigbhor statement we also need to change the version from 1 to 2 on switch3 because in the diagram its version 2 and on switch3 it is configured as version 1.


    I agree... need to change the neighbor statement in addition to adding version 2.

Sign In or Register to comment.