«

I'm trying to figure out if the rip protocol is needed in a Router
Private Line configuration. At one point in time, there were netware
servers running at each end of this Private Line. These netware
servers have since been removed and now it's only an IP network. At
one end of the Private line is a Cisco 2600 Router. At the other, a
Cisco 1700. In the configuration of each router, there is are the
following lines....

router eigrp 1
redistribute rip
network 10.0.0.0
!
router rip
redistribute eigrp 1
network 10.0.0.0
!
I guess my question is, do I still need to use RIP as a routing
protocol, and just use EIGRP? We're not using IPX as a protocol
anywhere on our network, so is it really needed.


Thanks in advance...

On Jun 26, 1:54 pm, displays <twh...@mechtron.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out if the rip protocol is needed in a Router
> Private Line configuration. At one point in time, there were netware
> servers running at each end of this Private Line. These netware
> servers have since been removed and now it's only an IP network. At
> one end of the Private line is a Cisco 2600 Router. At the other, a
> Cisco 1700. In the configuration of each router, there is are the
> following lines....
>
> router eigrp 1
> redistribute rip
> network 10.0.0.0
> !
> router rip
> redistribute eigrp 1
> network 10.0.0.0
> !
> I guess my question is, do I still need to use RIP as a routing
> protocol, and just use EIGRP? We're not using IPX as a protocol
> anywhere on our network, so is it really needed.
>
> Thanks in advance...

Not sure we can answer this without more information. Does EIGRP run
on both ends of this as well as RIP? If so, yes you could probably
get rid of RIP and not lose connectivity. However, where else does
RIP go? Is there any chance that something downstream only has RIP
and therefore taking out this router will prevent one of those RIP
networks from getting to these devices? If so, perhaps redistribution
is your answer instead of keeping RIP and EIGRP everywhere. The
bottom line is that you need to understand everywhere that RIP and
EIGRP are, especially places where only one may exist without the
other. Additionally you need to understand what networks/nodes/
environments talk to other networks/nodes/environments, and ensure
that disabling a routing protocol is not going to impact one of those
flows. At its most basic terms, all-inclusive and fully-meshed EIGRP
should be fine if this is a LAN network, but again, more information
is needed.

On Jun 26, 2:30 pm, Trendkill <jpma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 1:54 pm, displays <twh...@mechtron.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm trying to figure out if the rip protocol is needed in a Router
> > Private Line configuration. At one point in time, there were netware
> > servers running at each end of this Private Line. These netware
> > servers have since been removed and now it's only an IP network. At
> > one end of the Private line is a Cisco 2600 Router. At the other, a
> > Cisco 1700. In the configuration of each router, there is are the
> > following lines....
>
> > router eigrp 1
> > redistribute rip
> > network 10.0.0.0
> > !
> > router rip
> > redistribute eigrp 1
> > network 10.0.0.0
> > !
> > I guess my question is, do I still need to use RIP as a routing
> > protocol, and just use EIGRP? We're not using IPX as a protocol
> > anywhere on our network, so is it really needed.
>
> > Thanks in advance...
>
> Not sure we can answer this without more information. Does EIGRP run
> on both ends of this as well as RIP? If so, yes you could probably
> get rid of RIP and not lose connectivity. However, where else does
> RIP go? Is there any chance that something downstream only has RIP
> and therefore taking out this router will prevent one of those RIP
> networks from getting to these devices? If so, perhaps redistribution
> is your answer instead of keeping RIP and EIGRP everywhere. The
> bottom line is that you need to understand everywhere that RIP and
> EIGRP are, especially places where only one may exist without the
> other. Additionally you need to understand what networks/nodes/
> environments talk to other networks/nodes/environments, and ensure
> that disabling a routing protocol is not going to impact one of those
> flows. At its most basic terms, all-inclusive and fully-meshed EIGRP
> should be fine if this is a LAN network, but again, more information
> is needed.

Both routers on the ends of the Private Line T1 are running RIP. The
confiuratation looks like this...

Remote Office ----> Cisco 1750 ------> Private Line T1 ------> Cisco
2611 ----> Corporate Office -> Pix 515 ---- > Cisco 2620 ---->
Internet

The Cisco 2620 that is connected to the Internet does not have RIP
specified in it's config. The office that is connected to the Cisco
1750 communicates with the Corporate Office as well as gets to the
internet via the Private Line T1.

Not sure if this is enough information or is more needed.

On Jun 26, 2:30 pm, Trendkill <jpma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 1:54 pm, displays <twh...@mechtron.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm trying to figure out if the rip protocol is needed in a Router
> > Private Line configuration. At one point in time, there were netware
> > servers running at each end of this Private Line. These netware
> > servers have since been removed and now it's only an IP network. At
> > one end of the Private line is a Cisco 2600 Router. At the other, a
> > Cisco 1700. In the configuration of each router, there is are the
> > following lines....
>
> > router eigrp 1
> > redistribute rip
> > network 10.0.0.0
> > !
> > router rip
> > redistribute eigrp 1
> > network 10.0.0.0
> > !
> > I guess my question is, do I still need to use RIP as a routing
> > protocol, and just use EIGRP? We're not using IPX as a protocol
> > anywhere on our network, so is it really needed.
>
> > Thanks in advance...
>
> Not sure we can answer this without more information. Does EIGRP run
> on both ends of this as well as RIP? If so, yes you could probably
> get rid of RIP and not lose connectivity. However, where else does
> RIP go? Is there any chance that something downstream only has RIP
> and therefore taking out this router will prevent one of those RIP
> networks from getting to these devices? If so, perhaps redistribution
> is your answer instead of keeping RIP and EIGRP everywhere. The
> bottom line is that you need to understand everywhere that RIP and
> EIGRP are, especially places where only one may exist without the
> other. Additionally you need to understand what networks/nodes/
> environments talk to other networks/nodes/environments, and ensure
> that disabling a routing protocol is not going to impact one of those
> flows. At its most basic terms, all-inclusive and fully-meshed EIGRP
> should be fine if this is a LAN network, but again, more information
> is needed.

1. Are there only 2 routers involved ?

2. post output of "show ip route rip" and "show ip proto" from both
routers

On Jun 26, 3:09 pm, Merv <merv.hr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> 1. Are there only 2 routers involved ?
>
> 2. post output of "show ip route rip" and "show ip proto" from both
> routers

If it is one connection, with no backup method (dial-up, cable, etc),
then you could technically ditch this for static routes and be fine.
However, I don't recommend static configs at all except for DMZs and
other requirements, therefore RIP or EIGRP all the way through should
be fine. Your basic requirements are that the 1700 advertise its
networks to the HQ, and the HQ advertises a default route. Other than
that, I don't see any gotchas.

On Jun 26, 3:24 pm, Trendkill <jpma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 3:09 pm, Merv <merv.hr...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. Are there only 2 routers involved ?
>
> > 2. post output of "show ip route rip" and "show ip proto" from both
> > routers
>
> If it is one connection, with no backup method (dial-up, cable, etc),
> then you could technically ditch this for static routes and be fine.
> However, I don't recommend static configs at all except for DMZs and
> other requirements, therefore RIP or EIGRP all the way through should
> be fine. Your basic requirements are that the 1700 advertise its
> networks to the HQ, and the HQ advertises a default route. Other than
> that, I don't see any gotchas.

either way, you cannot just ditch RIP and not replace it with
something. Statics on both sides, a routing protocol on both sides,
etc. Provided the remote has a default route, it would know how to
get out, but the HQ would not know how to get back without some kind
of static or advertisement.

On Jun 26, 3:27 pm, Trendkill <jpma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 3:24 pm, Trendkill <jpma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 26, 3:09 pm, Merv <merv.hr...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > 1. Are there only 2 routers involved ?
>
> > > 2. post output of "show ip route rip" and "show ip proto" from both
> > > routers
>
> > If it is one connection, with no backup method (dial-up, cable, etc),
> > then you could technically ditch this for static routes and be fine.
> > However, I don't recommend static configs at all except for DMZs and
> > other requirements, therefore RIP or EIGRP all the way through should
> > be fine. Your basic requirements are that the 1700 advertise its
> > networks to the HQ, and the HQ advertises a default route. Other than
> > that, I don't see any gotchas.
>
> either way, you cannot just ditch RIP and not replace it with
> something. Statics on both sides, a routing protocol on both sides,
> etc. Provided the remote has a default route, it would know how to
> get out, but the HQ would not know how to get back without some kind
> of static or advertisement.

Well I think that I'm just gonna leave it the way it is. I was trying
to streamline the configuration, but I have bigger issues to tackle,
like Dial on Demand VPN connection using Verizon DSL connection to a
Pix Firewall.

Thank again.

Is is not as difficult as it may seem.

post your configs without passwords. along without the output of

show ip proto

show ip route

show ip traffic

from both routers