RE: OSPF/FR: why spoke-spoke relationships try to form?

From: Marshall Stacks (catheadcatheadcathead@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Dec 23 2002 - 01:39:47 GMT-3

• Next message: Ansar Mohideen: "ospf area range"
• Previous message: Emenike Agbim: "Re: Redist into RIP"
• Maybe in reply to: Marshall Stacks: "OSPF/FR: why spoke-spoke relationships try to form?"
• Next in thread: Tran Tien Phong: "RE: OSPF/FR: why spoke-spoke relationships try to form?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

>From: "Brian Dennis" <brian@5g.net>

>Have you checked to see if you have a dynamic frame-relay mapping
>between the two spokes? It looks like R4 has a frame-relay mapping to
>R3. This could happen if you disabled inverse-arp after the interface
>was up/up with an IP address applied.

I like the sound of that idea. I should have reloaded the routers to see
what happened... Thanks.

• Next message: Ansar Mohideen: "ospf area range"
• Previous message: Emenike Agbim: "Re: Redist into RIP"
• Maybe in reply to: Marshall Stacks: "OSPF/FR: why spoke-spoke relationships try to form?"
• Next in thread: Tran Tien Phong: "RE: OSPF/FR: why spoke-spoke relationships try to form?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:51 GMT-3