From: Christopher Van Heuveln (cvanheuv@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Aug 27 2000 - 16:50:08 GMT-3
Technically, the router-id doesn't even have to be a valid
address, so you can use something like this if you want:
router ospf 1
router-id 0.0.0.4
or
router ospf 1
router-id 255.255.255.1
Chris
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:48:39AM -0400, Brian Hescock wrote:
> Tony,
> Actually, it isn't necessarily the highest ip address, in fact, it
> usually isn't because most people use loopback interfaces. Example:
>
> int e 0
> ip add 200.200.200.1 255.255.255.0
>
> int loop 0
> ip add 135.89.1.1 255.255.255.252
>
> The router id would be 135.89.1.1 (at least after you clear the
> process) because it goes by the highest ip address in the router, unless a
> loopback is used. If a loopback is used, it goes by the loopback with the
> highest ip address. BTW, you can also now manually set the router-id
> with the router-id command (don't know which version, sorry).
>
> Someone also mentioned the loopback will always be advertised as a /32 no
> mater what the mask is on the interface. You can change this so it
> advertises the actual mask by using "ip ospf network point-to-point" under
> your loopback interface(s).
>
> Brian
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Tony Medeiros wrote:
>
> > Nope, It doesn't need to in the OSPF process. It just needs to be in an
> > "up" and "up" condition. OSPF picks the highest "active" interface to be
> > the router ID. If you configure a higher address later it won't change the
> > router ID however unless you restart OSPR neighbor negotiation, i.e. reload
> > or shut/no shut the interfaces. This isn't a big deal unless you've
> > configured virtual links with use router ID's as anchor points.
> > Take care,
> > Tony Medeiros
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "peter brown" <pita40@hotmail.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 6:02 AM
> > Subject: Loopback & OSPF
> >
> >
> > > If I have loopback int. for router id in ospf, do I need to add that int
.
> > > to an area. Is it necessary to add a network statement for that loopback
> > > int. address?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:24:31 GMT-3