From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Nov 02 2001 - 16:35:31 GMT-3
I had the same problem when playing with it recently but didn't have time to
check further. A better solution, if allowed, is to use "ip ospf
point-to-multipoint non-broadcast" and you don't have DR election.
Brian
Ajaz Nawaz wrote:
> please mail us the output from show ip ospf interface from the hub and the
> spokes.
>
> tia
> jaz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Kirby, Ron
> Sent: 02 November 2001 18:43
> To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: OSPF over NBMA
>
> 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