From: Kirby, Ron (Ron.Kirby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Nov 02 2001 - 15:42:40 GMT-3
In his book, IP routing V.I, Doyle says (pg 558):
"The neighbor command configures...with address..of its three neighbors.
The default priority is zero; by not changing the default...none of its
neighbors is eligible to become the DR or BDR."
I'm running a multipoint subinterface (R1 hub) to two physical serial frame
interfaces utilizing the neighbor command on the hub. With 12.1-5T code,
the router automatically added a priority to one of my neighbor statements:
R1:
router ospf 1
network 134.5.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 134.5.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
neighbor 134.5.20.3 priority 1 <--- added by IOS
neighbor 134.5.20.4
!
And then the highest IP loopback became the DR after the 3.3 router was the
DR:
r1#sh ip ospf nei
Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address Interface
134.5.3.3 1 FULL/DR 00:01:44 134.5.20.3
Serial0/0.2
N/A 0 ATTEMPT/DROTHER 00:01:14 134.5.20.4
Serial0/0.2
1w0d: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 134.5.4.4 on Serial0/0.2 from LOADING
to FULL, Loading r1#sh ip ospf nei
Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address Interface
134.5.3.3 1 FULL/DROTHER 00:01:57 134.5.20.3
Serial0/0.2
134.5.4.4 1 FULL/DR 00:01:57 134.5.20.4
Serial0/0.2
And then the router added the priority to the second neighbor statement:
R1:
router ospf 1
network 134.5.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 134.5.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
neighbor 134.5.20.3 priority 1 <--added by IOS
neighbor 134.5.20.4 priority 1 <--added by IOS
Doyle's next paragraph states that, in his example, the spoke routers were
configured with the IP address of the hub with a priority of 10, "which
means.....will become the DR." Well, didn't the use of the neighbor
statement with a default priority of zero ensure that the hub router would
become the DR? I found this exact behavior when I used physical interfaces
all around. So I ruled out differences of physical interfaces compared to
subinterfaces. Am I missing something?
Thanks
Ron Kirby
CCNP, MCSE, CNA
Network Engineer
Getronics, Houston ESC
713-852-5567 / 832-256-5403
ron.kirby@getronics.com
This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and please destroy all copies of
this message and attachments. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Laganiere [mailto:dennisl@advancedbionics.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 11:37 AM
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: Redistribution matrix
I've sent out almost 100 copies of what we have so far. The e-mails were
coming fast and furious, so if you still want a copy or if I missed you,
please send me an e-mail. This is a slightly different version then I sent
yesterday. I tried to incorporate Eric's excellent thoughts (EA Louie).
If even a portion of the people I sent it to feel like contributing, we
should be able to put together an excellent guide to redistribution that we
can all use to study from. If you do send me any changes or additions,
please use a different colored text so I can easily identify the changes.
Here's what I would like to accomplish:
* What I was trying to put together was something easy to
navigate that would have a sample configuration and a list of the issues for
each possible redistribution.
* I would like to keep the document "open" so people can
adapted it to their own study style. I used an MS Word document, but if you
want something else, let me know.
* I'd like to keep it simple enough that even someone of my
limited intelligence could figure out what's going on.
Let me know your thoughts...
--- Dennis
<<Redistribution Matrix.doc>>
[GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type application/msword which had a
name of Redistribution Matrix.doc]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:02 GMT-3