From: sheng li (slilxn@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Apr 03 2006 - 03:16:02 GMT-3
You need NBMA when lab instruction tells you NOT to
broadcast, or NOT to touch ospf network type, or to
elect DR (because P-M never has DR). I'd love to use
P-M whenever possible, however, P-M does introduce
some 32bit networks for those endpoints, maybe
something to worry about.
--- Michael <mamiller2@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ok, but doesn't Cisco documentation say differently?
> I'm really confused
> about this for some reason I don't understand yet.
> I do understand about
> TTL = 1. So with any configuration then R1 and R3
> will never be neighbors
> in OSPF? Only neighbors are spoke(s) & hub then?
>
> The optional OSPF interface settings only allow DR
> election & timer
> settings?
>
> So when would you logically use Cisco default NBMA
> OSPF interface rather
> than P-M?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlie Atwater
> [mailto:catwater@AUSSIEMAIL.COM.AU]
> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:15 PM
> To: mamiller2@comcast.net
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: OSPF - Hub & Spoke -
> Point-to-Multipoint
>
> Michael I believe this is because R1 and R2 are
> neighbors as are R2 and R3.
> But R1 and R3 are not actually neighbors.
>
> CAT
>
> --- mamiller2@comcast.net wrote:
>
> From: "Michael" <mamiller2@comcast.net>
> To: "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: OSPF - Hub & Spoke - Point-to-Multipoint
> Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 21:43:09 -0600
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I am trying to understand some information about FR
> Point-to-Multipoint
> network interfaces in a Hub and Spoke architecture.
> I think I just figured
> it out but I still would like to hear comments.
>
>
>
> R1 (Spoke) <-> R2 (Hub) <-> R3 (Spoke)
>
>
>
> All three routers are physically connected to a IOS
> router and configured
> using routed PVC's. Is it because of the routed
> pvc's that I do not see "IP
> OSPF Neighbors" of R3 in R1?
>
>
>
> I am using physical (multipoint) interfaces with
> frame maps.
>
>
>
> Is it true that switched pvc's in my IOS router
> would react differently?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 01 2006 - 11:41:56 GMT-3