From: p729@xxxxxxx
Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 02:17:08 GMT-3
FWIW, despite what the docs imply and with all due respect to Mr. Doyle, I've n
ever been able to SET the neighbor's priority using the 'neighbor' command. I'v
e seen it REFLECT the priority the neighbor was set to by its own 'ip ospf prio
rity' command, but I've never seen it force it on to the neighbor. I accept wha
t I've seen since the DR election is a bidding process.
Feel free to gong me if you've seen otherwise...
Regards,
Mas Kato
https://ecardfile.com/id/mkato
============================================================
From: "Jonathan Hays" <jhays@jtan.com>
Date: 2002/05/21 Tue PM 06:35:23 EDT
To: "'David Luu'" <wicked01@ix.netcom.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: RE: Jeff Doyle pg 558 OSPF defauly priority 0
Thanks David! I was sleeping. <g> I retract my statement about the typo
in Doyle. I didn't read the entire context.
As David has pointed out, the "neighbor" command has its own "priority"
option. This "neighbor" command is configured on DR/BDR routers in NMBA
environments to identify its OSPF neighbors since neighbors cannot be
dynamically discovered via multicast to 224.0.0.5.
neighbor ip-address [priority number] [poll-interval seconds]
However, note that the "neighbor" command's "priority" option does NOT
have the same exact effect as that in the "ip ospf priority" command.
Whereas the "ip ospf priority" command is setting the router's own
priority on its own interface, the optional neighbor "priority"
parameter (whose default value is zero) indicates the NEIGHBOR'S
eligibility to become DR or BDR.
This makes sense when you also realize that the "neighbor" command is
configured only on the DR and BDR, since these DRs and BDRs are the only
routers that need to establish adjacencies with everyone else. So if you
are configuring the "neighbor" command only on the DR/BDR, then by
default most other routers probably will NOT be a DR/BDR and that
default makes sense.
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: David Luu [mailto:wicked01@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 2:44 PM
To: Jonathan Hays; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Jeff Doyle pg 558 OSPF defauly priority 0
like i said before...
on the interface the default is 1
but when you go into router ospf and use the neighbor command with the
priority option it defaults to 0
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios113ed/113ed_
cr/np1_r/1rospf.htm#xtocid2457221
At 08:48 AM 5/21/2002 -0700, Jonathan Hays wrote:
>The default priority for OSPF is always ONE, even in NBMA mode. Doyle's
>book has a typographical error.
>
>You can test this yourself by setting up a small OSPF NBMA scenario. If
>you then type "show run" and you do NOT see the priority listed in the
>configuration that means the priority is currently at the default
>value. To verify this, type "show ip ospf int" and you will see the
>priority, as in the NBMA example below.
>
>RouterA#show ip ospf interface
>Serial0 is up, line protocol is up
> Internet Address 192.1.1.2/24, Area 0
> Process ID 65, Router ID 2.2.2.2, Network Type BROADCAST, Cost: 64
> Transmit Delay is 1 sec, State BDR, Priority 1
> Designated Router (ID) 1.1.1.1, Interface address 192.1.1.1
> <snip>
>
>Jonathan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>David Luu
>Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 1:35 AM
>To: Schwantz; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: Jeff Doyle pg 558 OSPF defauly priority 0
>
>
>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 - 10:59:04 GMT-3