From: Jinho Hong (sthong@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 26 1999 - 01:30:39 GMT-3
Hi,
Point to Point does not support DR/BDR.
When configuring OSPF on an NBMA network
Interface Type Hello/Dead Interval Elects of
DR/BDR router
Broadcast 10 / 40 DR/BDR
Point to Point 10 / 40 no DR/BDR
Non-Broadcast 30 / 120 DR/BDR
Point to Multipoint 30 / 120 no DR/BDR
Regards,
Jinho Hong
-----Original Message-----
·ol : Brian Van Benschoten <vader@inxpress.net>
¶æ : ccielab@groupstudy.com <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
ú : 1999N526ú 11:47
¼ : Re: OSPF and virtual links
>I thought the IP OSPF NETWORK POINT-TO-POINT also stopped the DR election.
>All routers ( directly connected via a PVC) on a frame-relay network using
>this command would establish a FULL adjacency without the electing a DR and
>a BDR?
>
>any comments
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Scott Morris <SMorris@tele-tech.com>
>To: 'Nentarz, Dave' <Dave.Nentarz@compaq.com>; 'Brian Van Benschoten'
><brian.vanbenschoten@inacom-msn.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 6:11 PM
>Subject: RE: OSPF and virtual links
>
>
>> Ummmm.... All that statement does (as far as i'm aware) is change the
>> timers of the OSPF process on that interface... If you want to advertise
>a
>> loopback any way other than /32, you'll need to do redistribute
connected,
>> and possibly use a route map to pull that route through (ie. don't add
>that
>> network directly into the OSPF process).
>>
>> Scott Morris, MCSE, CNE (3.x), CCDA, CCIE #4713
>> smorris@tele-tech.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nentarz, Dave [mailto:Dave.Nentarz@compaq.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 10:20 AM
>> To: 'Brian Van Benschoten'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Subject: RE: OSPF and virtual links
>>
>>
>> I remember seeing a tech tip regarding this.
>>
>> Configure this under (loopback) interface mode:
>> ip ospf network point-to-point
>>
>> This will make OSPF advertise your loopback interface as the network or
>> subnet it's mask defines, rather than the /32 host route.
>>
>> I tried searching CCO docs for this to find which IOS level this first
>> appeared in as a feature, but couldn't find anything on it..I'll keep
>> looking.. try it in your lab and let me know if it works.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Van Benschoten [mailto:brian.vanbenschoten@inacom-msn.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 1999 12:55 PM
>> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Subject: OSPF and virtual links
>>
>>
>> I set up a lab test using virtual links. I used loopback interfaces
> with
>> high ip numbers) on both the routers that the vitural link connected. I
>did
>> this for stability and the fact the one of the routers had an ISDN dial
>> backup link with a higher IP address than the other interaces. This is
>the
>> method most people recommend to do in the field. I realized that the
>> loopbacks must be reachable from both routers in order to establish the
>> virtual link. (the virtual link command points to the ROUTER ID, not an
>> interface) so i included the loopbacks in the routing protocol. This got
>me
>> thinking about the CCIE lab
>>
>> A question regarding the CCIE lab exam..... I've had people tell me not
>to
>> do anything extra / more than is asked for during the lab. People have
>told
>> me that at the end of a section where different ip routing protocols /
>> redistribution are used, all routers should be able to ping all other
>> interfaces. Does this mean the "extra" interfaces i created to do a task
>?
>>
>> If i include my loopback interfaces in whatever area my router is in,
>using
>> the network command; OSPF advertises loopback interfaces as /32. This
>mask
>> wont redistribute into classfull routing protocols like IGRP. I could
run
>> the loopbacks in a seperate area an use the "area range" to summarize
>those
>> addresses to match whatever subnet nask the classful protocol needed.
But
>> then am I supposed to create more OSPF areas than what the lab required ?
>I
>> could redistribute connected into OSPF but then the routes show up as
>> external ?
>>
>> anyone see where I'm going with this ? Any opinions?
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:37 GMT-3