dlsw - is the peer-id in the local-peer statement really

From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Aug 11 2003 - 16:00:24 GMT-3

• Next message: Danny.Andaluz@triaton-na.com: "Local Route-maps (just to be sure)"
• Previous message: Jason Cash: "RE: Area 0 - OSPF vlink auth."
• Next in thread: asadovnikov: "RE: dlsw - is the peer-id in the local-peer statement really"
• Maybe reply: asadovnikov: "RE: dlsw - is the peer-id in the local-peer statement really"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi all,

I noticed that the syntax of the local-peer statement shows the [peer-id ip
address] as optional but I don't recall ever seeing an example where the
peer-id is left out.

If it's not really needed, can somebody show me a working example of that or
explain under what circumstances it's not needed.

Thanks in advance, dt

• Next message: Danny.Andaluz@triaton-na.com: "Local Route-maps (just to be sure)"
• Previous message: Jason Cash: "RE: Area 0 - OSPF vlink auth."
• Next in thread: asadovnikov: "RE: dlsw - is the peer-id in the local-peer statement really"
• Maybe reply: asadovnikov: "RE: dlsw - is the peer-id in the local-peer statement really"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 18:53:57 GMT-3