From: Schwantz (kevin_ross46@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 10:15:36 GMT-3
Tshon,
I realise that in a NBMA environment, the Hub router should be configured
with a OPSF priority greater than the spokes. What I was confused about was
Doyle's statement implying that with the neighbor statements configured, the
spoke routers will take on a default priority of 0 and not 1 . I labded the
scenario and found that the default priority on the spoke routers (even with
the neighbor statements configured at the hub) was 1 and not 0.
Anyway, its not a show stopper. I guess so long as I make sure to manually
configure the spoke priority as 0 , I wouldn't hit into any issues.
Sunil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tshon" <tshon@netzero.net>
To: "David Luu" <wicked01@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: "Schwantz" <kevin_ross46@yahoo.co.uk>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Jeff Doyle pg 558 OSPF defauly priority 0
> I think what you are looking for is this:
>
> The router hub or HQ router you should place neighbor statements on it,
> these statements should have
> the default Priority on them. This makes the remotes ineligible to
> become the DR/BDR. And only the
> Hub or HQ can become the DR/BDR. Now, as for statements place on the
> Remotes listing the Hub or HQ,
> you should set a Priority higher than 0.
>
> David Luu wrote:
>
> > on an interface the default ospf priority is 1
> > when specifying neighbors in an nbma environment, the default is 0
> >
> > At 03:39 PM 5/19/2002 +0800, Schwantz wrote:
> >
> >> 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 - 10:59:03 GMT-3