From: Schwantz (kevin_ross46@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 19 2002 - 04:39:52 GMT-3
David,
If that is the case, what does Doyle mean when he says that the default
priority is 0 ?
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Luu" <wicked01@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Kevin Mitnick" <kevin_ross46@yahoo.co.uk>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Jeff Doyle pg 558 OSPF defauly priority 0
> default priority is 1, and yes priority 0 does not let it participate in
> the DR selection
>
> At 06:37 AM 5/19/2002 +0100, Kevin Mitnick wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I was reading page 558 of Jeff Doyle's Routing TCP/IP Volume 1 and came
> >across this paragraph.
> >
> >"The neighbor command configures Rembrandt with the IP addresses of the
> >interfaces of its three neighbors. The default priority is zero; by not
> >changing the default at Rembrandt, none of its neighbors is eligible to
> >become the DR or BDR?
> >
> >Doesn't having priority zero make a router ineligible to be DR or BDR ?
> >
> >When I read Solie ( CCIE Practical Studies page 762), it wrote
> >
> >"The hub router of the multipoint network, or the router that has a PVC
> >to each site, should be statically configured as the DR. To accomplish
> >this, set the priority of the spoke or remote routers to 0. A priority
> >of 0 tells OSPF that this interface or neighbor will not participate in
> >the DR/BDR election process"
> >
> >Am I missing something ? Could someone help clarify the above two
> >statements ? I read the archives and someone said that it might have
> >something to do with the nieghbor statements. However, both books used
> >the neighbor statements to identify their neigbors.
> >
> >Kevin
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:59:01 GMT-3