From: Bajo (bajoalex@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 06 2006 - 06:32:46 ART
Hi Sabrina,
My understanding is that cost (or bandwidth) is local to that router for
that interface.
Yes there are cases where you want to adjust the cost on both side (not
necessarily the same) so that the link is less or more preferred than
another redundant link.
Things like: Hello, Dead interval, Stub flag, Authentication, Auto-BW should
match across the ospf domain.
Anyone, pls correct me if wrong.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fipr_c/ipcprt2/1cfospf.htm
Configuring OSPF Interface Parameters
Our OSPF implementation allows you to alter certain interface-specific OSPF
parameters, as needed. You are not required to alter any of these
parameters, but some interface parameters must be consistent across all
routers in an attached network. Those parameters are controlled by the *ip
ospf hello-interval*, *ip ospf dead-interval*, and *ip ospf
authentication-key* interface configuration commands. Therefore, be sure
that if you do configure any of these parameters, the configurations for all
routers on your network have compatible values.
On 9/5/06, sabrina pittarel <sabri_esame@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> assuming I have the following topology:
>
>
> R1 -----------(SW)------------R2
> f0/0 e0/0
>
> with R1 and R2 running OSPF.
> Should I adjust the ip ospf cost on R1 to reflect R2's cost (or
> viceversa)?
> Having a different cost on each side of the link may cause asymmetric
> routing to happen (assuming a topology a little more complex than the one I
> drew) and I wonder if it is required in the lab to have the two interface
> costs matching.
>
> I believe that when a task explicitly requires to change the cost we have
> to do it on both side (right?), wouldn't this be a similar case?
>
> Sabrina
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
-- Kind Regards,Bajo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 16:55:40 ART