From: lim es (tiga72@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun May 21 2006 - 11:32:19 ART
Hi,
why not, if there is a tie in ospf type, cost is the
next factor, anything behind r1 will calculate the
best path into r2
--- Koen Zeilstra <koen@koenzeilstra.com> wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> Suppose you have 3 routers.
>
> R1 is the frame-relay hub with a multipoint sub
> interface. R2 and R3 are
> spokes with a physical FR interface.
>
> R2 and R3 have a shared ethernet segment.
>
> R1-------(FR)-------|
> | |
> | |
> (FR) |
> | |
> | |
> R2----(ethernet)-----R3
>
>
> I want to like to prefer the path for R2 to go via
> R3 for routes behind
> R1 instead of directly to R1.
>
> I can use ip ospf cost on the physical interface of
> R2 to make the FR link
> less interesting and prefer the ethernet to R3.
> However for traffic coming
> from networks behind R1 this won't work. That
> traffic will still go trough
> the FR link R1-R2 instead of using R1-R3-R2. I
> cannot set ip ospf cost on
> an interface basis on R1 since that is a multipoint
> sub. Setting cost on a
> neigbhor is also not allowed for the same reason.
>
> Hope this is clear.
>
> Anybody a solution for this?
>
> thanks,
>
> Koen
>
> -----------------------
> If little else, the brain is an educational toy.
> -- Tom Robbins
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:22 ART