From: Jian Gu (guxiaojian@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 01:55:40 GMT-3
Why do you think the reason routes did not get advertised is because the
metric is > 65535? 65535 is just the maximum cost configurable on an ospf
interface, accumative metric for an ospf route can be any value. And I don't
think virtual-link over PPPoFR has anything to do with the reason that the
route did not get advertised, to the OSPF process they are just another
interface type.
On 10/4/05, Edwards, Andrew M <andrew.m.edwards@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone have any problems running virtual-links with PPPoFrame?
>
> I ran into a problem trying to help a client the other day that required
> me to change the OSPF cost of the virtual-template to resolve the
> reachability issue (metric was >65535)... strange cause I thought 65535 was
> the max for OSPF. I saw it was 65610 and then the router with that metric
> didn't advertise the route.
>
>
> R1 ---- ethernet ------ R2 ----- PPPoFrame ----- R3 ------ethernet ------
> R4
>
> R1-R2 link area 0, R2 to R3 link Area 10, R3 to R4 link area 20.
>
> Virtual link R2 to R3. Look at R2 metric for R4 ethernet is > 65535 (its
> like 65610) Of course R1 doesn't see R4 ethernet.
>
> I thought that was strange cause I dont recall ever having to change the
> ospf cost for the virtual-template interface.
>
> Any ideas or just some circumstantial stuff....?
>
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 22:00:49 GMT-3