to understand EIGRP I would look at Cisco Doc and for OSPF also at Cisco Doc and at the RFC.
But basically no autosummary means do not automatically summarize the subnet you're going to advertize when crossing a major network boundary, this is now default on latest IOS versions and passive interface means do not establish a neighbour relationship on this link but advertise the subnet anyway.
Let me give a small scenario to know how that eigrp no-auto summary will work.
Imagine a campus network. the entire network functions within the 10.0.0.0/8 space internally. you're going to use vlsm to break the network up into different subnets as needed (/30's or /31's for point-to-point links, /23 or /24 for user access, etc.).
routing protocols automatically summarize the networks they advertise (i.e. your router wouldn't care if you had 10.0.1.0/24, 10.1.0.0/24, and 10.100.1.0/24 in your routing table, it would advertise one route -- 10.0.0.0/8). when every router is trying to do this -- they all eventually begin to get confused because they all have routes to the same destination (10.0.0.0/8) but no "more specific" prefix information is carried
And you would use no auto-summary when you require carrying traffic that originates from a subnetted subnet to keep its classless address across the neighbor router. It's usually not an issue when neighbor routers share the same subnetted address space on their interfaces.
Regarding passive interface command:
With EIGRP running on a network, the passive-interface command stops both outgoing and incoming routing updates, since the effect of the command causes the router to stop sending and receiving hello packets over an interface.
I would like to add on the interview question - How EIGRP is better than OSPF.
1) My strategy to respond to that question would have been - It's basically a design practice followed by an organization. So, comparing EIGRP with OSPF or vice-versa may not be genuine. But still for the sake of discussion, i would feel below points which gives an edge to EIGRP over OSPF.
EIGRP is a Cisco-properietary protocol. So, the level of support we may get in terms of any issues pertaining to this protocol is more , Hypothetically This has it's own disadvantage though, any other non-cisco device wouldn't support this. But if all cisco, then this statement would be fair.
EIGRP is a fastest converging protocol (capable to providing sub-second convergence). Well, OSPF as well is capable of providing a sub-second convergence, if tuned correctly).
Major edge of EIGRP over OSPF is EIGRP supports unequal cost loadbalancing & route summurization can be done wherever we want in the network.
Personally one more thing what i feel is - EIGRP is not a messy routing protocol, what that means is .. I need not worry about the hold-time / dead-interval time etc of it's neighbor. Neighborship forms just without much conditions.
If you look at the above, you wouldn't see much of an advantage apart from summarization & unequal cost load balancing. So, it's frankly unfair to question which is better as per me.
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3.
16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted
towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are
looking for early feedback from customers befor...
Introduction Featured Speakers Luis Espejel is the Telecommunications
Manager of IENova, an Oil & Gas company. Currently he works with Cisco
IOS® and Cisco IOS XE platforms, and NX to some extent. He has also
worked as a Senior Engineer with the Routing P...
In this session you can learn more about Layer 3 multicast and the best
practices to identify possible threats and take security measures. It
provides an overview of basic multicast, the best security practices for
use of this technology, and recommendati...