From: Curtis Phillips (cphillips@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat May 11 2002 - 16:41:39 GMT-3
Steve,
I think you will find that demand-circuit is still required if dialer-watch
is used with OSPF.
Set it up and you will see that the OSPF will keep the ISDN up.
Curtis
----- Original Message -----
From: <steven.j.nelson@bt.com>
To: <cphillips@suscom.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: Justification for use of Dialer-watch in OSPF
> Curtis
>
> Think you may have answered your own question here except for one small
> point.
>
> Dialer Watch and OSPF Demand circuit are not and were never meant to work
in
> conjunction with each other, they are two separate technologies that allow
> demand (Dialer, X.25, atm and frame svc etc etc) circuits to keep quiet
> unless a specific condition is met.
>
> In the case of ospf demand circuit the trigger is a change in topology etc
> etc
>
> In the case of Dialer Watch when a watched route dissapears from the
routing
> table
>
> Don't confuse the two and use them as they are meant separately...
>
> HTH, ant more questions mail me off line...
>
> All the best
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curtis Phillips [mailto:cphillips@suscom.net]
> Sent: 11 May 2002 16:29
> To: ccielab
> Subject: Justification for use of Dialer-watch in OSPF
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> I was thinking about the use of Dialer-watch with OSPF over ISDN. I know
> that
> demand-circuits are used in conjunction with dialer-watch in the same
manner
> as protocol packets are filtered by dialer-lists fro EIGRP or IGRP.
>
> Demand interfaces allow the dialer to bypass keep-alives and to dial only
> when there is a change (addition or deletion) of LSA in the OSPF database.
>
> It seems to me that demand circuits would adequately cover the suppression
> of
> dial related to anything other than a change in database LSAs. So, I
wonder
> what the perceived benefit is of using dialer-watch with OSPF. Unless it
is
> to
> track routes that are not in the OSPF process.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Curtis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:54 GMT-3