EIGRP Question

Just wandering what the best practice is for enabling eigrp on the desired interfaces you want participating. I understand you would want to be direct as possible, but is it preferred to do it per int, or if you do have interfaces that all fall into a group that you can ues a wildcard mask that will in gulf all interfaces, that is preferred instead of doing each individualy, or is just a personal preferrece? Would it be harder on the processor if you did do it individualy? Is there really any advantage to either way other then control?

Find more posts tagged with

SAVE $250 on Your CISCO Boot Camp — Use Code "EXAM26"

Exclusively for TechExams members for Infosec Boot Camps starting before April 30, 2026

View CISCO Boot Camps

Comments

wolverene13

I would do it on a per interface basis; you always want to be as granular and specific as possible. It also lessens the possibility that you may inadvertently include a subnet in the EIGRP AS that you didn't want to include. As far as processor load impact, it will increase load on the CPU, but marginally. It won't crash the router or anything.

Forsaken_GA

It doesn't really matter. Though if I were in an environment with other folks, I'd probably use the network statements because that's the most common method taught.

Either way you decide, you should be using passive-interface statements on interfaces you don't want participating in the routing protocol as another safeguard

DevilWAH

A little bit of every thing

I use network statements, passive interfaces, static neighbour commands. Every thing so that where I want to lock it down I do and in other places I open it up.

generaly I find I like tighter control in the distribution layer, while I use more generaly commands in the core.

As I will often add a network / new devices to a distribution layer, I don't want to have to reconfigure the core to add it in to the routing.

Netwurk

A lot of networks just use network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 which advertises all possible routes. Works in the real world (only because it is the easy solution), but for the CCNP you need to know how to do things a lot more specifically.

Forsaken_GA

Netwurk wrote: »

A lot of networks just use network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 which advertises all possible routes. Works in the real world (only because it is the easy solution), but for the CCNP you need to know how to do things a lot more specifically.

This will work too, especially if you just passive-interface the ints you don't want forming neighborships, but it's shotgun configurating hehe