From: Ademola Osindero (osindero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002 - 11:48:34 GMT-3
Group,
I am kind of back to the question, "am I allowed to just pick any set of ip
addresses (just like I would for ipx routing) to ease ospf router
identification?". I just got to know about it and thot it makes a lot of
difference especially when you have configured your OSPF and now told to
introduce another loopback address later.
Andre, I want to go by your words, "nail it down". But can I choose a more
friendly ip addresses rather than the given ip addresses.
Guys, you can keep out the question of OSPF not coming out in the lab.
Any proctor may help.
Best Regards,
Ademola
Andre, At 08:40 PM 5/21/2002 -0400, Denise Donohue wrote:
>Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was responding to what I read into
>Bruce's answer. If you weren't allowed to nail the router id, then that's a
>good argument for at least skimming the entire test before starting. Then
>you could go ahead and put on any loopbacks before configuring the routing
>protocols.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nick Shah [mailto:nshah@connect.com.au]
>Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 8:33 PM
>To: Denise Donohue; 'Bruce Williams'; 'Michael Snyder'
>Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: OSPF - practice approach (pseudo loopbacks)
>
>
>Denise,
>
>Of course what you are telling is true, however, the discussion was
>revolving around 2 aspects, one being that *what if* we are not allowed to
>use pseudo router id's ?
>
>Nick
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Denise Donohue <denise@dtxnet.com>
>To: 'Nick Shah' <nshah@connect.com.au>; 'Bruce Williams'
><bruce@williamsnetworking.com>; 'Michael Snyder' <msnyder@ldd.net>
>Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Date: Monday, 3 June 2002 8:22
>Subject: RE: OSPF - practice approach (pseudo loopbacks)
>
>
> >One thing you should know about all this is that the router id doesn't have
> >to be an actual interface address on the router, in OSPF or in BGP either.
> >It's just a number the router uses to identify itself. You can use 1.1.1.1
> >etc without creating any new interfaces.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> >Nick Shah
> >Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 2:42 PM
> >To: Bruce Williams; Michael Snyder
> >Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: OSPF - practice approach (pseudo loopbacks)
> >
> >
> >Guys,
> >
> >There are 2 approaches here ...We are..
> >
> >* allowed/disallowed to use our own router-id's (what we call pseudo id's)
> >* allowed/disallowed to *nail* the router-id's
> >
> >In the first scenario, if allowed we can use router-id 1.1.1.1 (for RTRA)
> >and so on. This obviously has its benefits (easy recognizability for one,
> >stability of virtual links etc. the other).
> >
> >Even if we are not allowed to do the first, we can still do the second,
>how.
> >Say for example, after turning on OSPF processes on all of the routers in
> >the lab, see what has been selected in terms of router-ids, say RtrA is
> >192.168.250.250, still nail it as, router-id 192.168.250.250. This is
>better
> >because now whatever new loopbacks are added or if new ip addresses are
> >assigned at a later stage in lab, the router id wont change on reload.
> >
> >What do you think of this ?
> >
> >rgds
> >Nick
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bruce Williams" <bruce@williamsnetworking.com>
> >To: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@ldd.net>
> >Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 1:03 AM
> >Subject: RE: OSPF - practice approach
> >
> >
> >> That is what I figured. I will ask the proctor, but at least I know that
>I
> >> am not the only one who does that. I guess that is all I was really
> >looking
> >> for. I kind of wanted to see if anyone else did the same thing and you
> >> validated that for me.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bruce
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael Snyder [mailto:msnyder@ldd.net]
> >> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 10:38 AM
> >> To: 'Bruce Williams'
> >> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> Subject: RE: OSPF - practice approach
> >>
> >>
> >> Save that question for the proctor. I suspect each test would be
> >> different. Aren't you assuming all tests have ospf? Heck you may get
> >> ISIS.
> >>
> >> The short answer is that we don't know, and if we did know, we couldn't
> >> tell you.
> >>
> >> BTW, I do the same thing, it seems to be a standard practice. Here's my
> >> routing table from last night's lab.
> >>
> >> Gateway of last resort is not set
> >>
> >> 1.0.0.0 0xFFFFFF00 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> >> C 1.1.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback0
> >> 2.0.0.0 0xFFFFFF00 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> >> D 2.2.2.0 [90/2809856] via 10.1.1.26, 14:30:33, Serial0
> >> 3.0.0.0 0xFFFFFF00 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> >> D 3.3.3.0 [90/2297856] via 10.1.1.2, 14:30:24, Serial1
> >> 4.0.0.0 0xFFFFFF00 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> >> D 4.4.4.0 [90/3321856] via 10.1.1.26, 07:42:02, Serial0
> >> 5.0.0.0 0xFFFFFF00 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> >> D 5.5.5.0 [90/2297856] via 10.1.1.26, 14:30:33, Serial0
> >> 6.0.0.0 0xFFFFFF00 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> >> D 6.6.6.0 [90/3321856] via 10.1.1.2, 07:42:02, Serial1
> >> 7.0.0.0 0xFFFFFF00 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> >> D 7.7.7.0 [90/2809856] via 10.1.1.2, 14:30:24, Serial1
> >> 10.0.0.0 0xFFFFFFFC is subnetted, 7 subnets
> >> D 10.1.1.8 [90/3193856] via 10.1.1.2, 14:30:24, Serial1
> >> D 10.1.1.12 [90/3705856] via 10.1.1.2, 07:42:02, Serial1
> >> [90/3705856] via 10.1.1.26, 07:42:02, Serial0
> >> C 10.1.1.0 is directly connected, Serial1
> >> D 10.1.1.4 [90/2681856] via 10.1.1.2, 14:31:24, Serial1
> >> C 10.1.1.24 is directly connected, Serial0
> >> D 10.1.1.16 [90/3193856] via 10.1.1.26, 14:31:34, Serial0
> >> D 10.1.1.20 [90/2681856] via 10.1.1.26, 14:31:34, Serial0
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Bruce Williams
> >> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 8:47 AM
> >> To: Andre Riscalla; Michael Popovich
> >> Cc: Bauer, Rick; 'Jerry Haverkos'; Ademola Osindero;
> >> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> Subject: RE: OSPF - practice approach
> >>
> >> I know this is a queston for the proctor, but I am curious now. In the
> >> lab,
> >> do you know if you are allowed to create your own loopbacks and make
> >> those
> >> loopbacks your router ids. For example, could I create a loopback with
> >> addresss 1.1.1.1 for R1 and 2.2.2.2 for R2 etc?
> >>
> >> Bruce Williams
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> >> Andre Riscalla
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 11:41 PM
> >> To: Michael Popovich
> >> Cc: Bauer, Rick; 'Jerry Haverkos'; Ademola Osindero;
> >> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> Subject: Re: OSPF - practice approach
> >>
> >>
> >> In that case, i think a good practice is to nail it down and configure a
> >> router-id under each and every OSPF process... if it's not otherwise
> >> specified in the lab, you can do it.
> >>
> >> AR-
> >>
> >> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Michael Popovich wrote:
> >>
> >> > You'll just need to remember the rules that if you have loopback
> >> interfaces
> >> > the highest IP wins. If you add them later you'll need to change the
> >> > configurations for the virtual link or upon a reboot it is broken.
> >> >
> >> > MP
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Bauer, Rick" <BAUERR@toysrus.com>
> >> > To: "'Jerry Haverkos'" <jhaverkos@columbus.rr.com>; "Ademola Osindero"
> >> > <osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:34 PM
> >> > Subject: RE: OSPF - practice approach
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > And what happens when you add more loopback interfaces and reload
> >> the
> >> > > router? What if you have virtual links? Nail it up!
> >> > >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Jerry Haverkos [mailto:jhaverkos@columbus.rr.com]
> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:56 PM
> >> > > To: Ademola Osindero; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> > > Subject: RE: OSPF - practice approach
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > A router-id will be picked for you, automatically.
> >> > >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf
> >> Of
> >> > > Ademola Osindero
> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 12:02 PM
> >> > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> > > Subject: OSPF - practice approach
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Group,
> >> > >
> >> > > I working on approaches of answering ques in the lab. Do I really
> >> need
> >> to
> >> > > put a router id on my routers while configuring OSPF....am I allowed
> >> to
> >> > > just pick up an ip address and use it?
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards
> >> > >
> >> > > Osindero Ademola
> >> > > Schlumberger Network Solutions
> >> > > Tel: 234 1 261 0446 Ext 5427
> >> > > Fax 234 1 262 1034
> >> > > email:osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:22 GMT-3