From: Jason Guy \(jguy\) (jguy@cisco.com)
Date: Thu Jul 05 2007 - 15:20:13 ART
Gary,
Basically the VT is just a template for the virtual-access interface to
be created from. So what you configure on the template will be cloaned
to the VA interface spawned from it. So no it itself is not an
interface, but it is a template for an interface (guilt by association).
In this case the ospf statement configured on it would be replicated to
the actual virtual-access interface and that is a real (well virtual)
interface. :)
Jason
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Duncanson [mailto:gary.duncanson@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 12:54 PM
> To: Jason Guy (jguy)
> Cc: swm@emanon.com; Eric Dobyns; Narbik Kocharians;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: PPPoFR
>
> Jason,
>
> Is Virtual-Template/Access just a template and not an interface at
all? I
> have only played with these recently.
>
> I'm going to have to take a look at this one. Put it on the list of
stuff
> to
> do.
>
> Gary
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Guy (jguy)" <jguy@cisco.com>
> To: "Eric Dobyns" <eric_dobyns@yahoo.com>; "Ben" <bmunyao@gmail.com>;
> "Gary
> Duncanson" <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
> Cc: "Narbik Kocharians" <narbikk@gmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:08 PM
> Subject: RE: PPPoFR
>
>
> Very cool and it actually makes sense. The Virtual-Template/Access is
> the interface participating in OSPF. The ip unnumbered is just
> indicating the ip address to use for the interface. So it makes sense
> to put the interface ospf command on the interface with the link
running
> OSPF.
>
> The loopback on the other hand is an innocent bystander in the
> situation. It is unaware of another interface using its IP address.
By
> applying the ospf command to a loopback just creates a stub host on
the
> router for the loopback.
>
> Like the network statement, the ospf interface command is used to
> indicate the interface to run ospf on. By putting it on the loopback,
> the loopback runs ospf...not the loopback and any interface that
> unnumbered to it. :) The think I find interesting is the network
> statement for the loopback address should have worked fine. The
> question is does it create the loopback stub host entry AND the p2p
> entry? I have to try this as well.
>
> Jason
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Eric Dobyns
> > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 10:10 AM
> > To: 'Ben'; 'Gary Duncanson'
> > Cc: 'Narbik Kocharians'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: PPPoFR
> >
> > Tried it to see. Neighbor adjacency only comes up when you place it
> on
> > the
> > virtual-template. I was surprised. I set the frame up ptp, I
suppose
> you
> > might get it up with multipoint at the hub and neighbor statements,
> but I
> > didn't try it to see.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Ben
> > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:52 AM
> > To: Gary Duncanson
> > Cc: eric_dobyns@yahoo.com; Narbik Kocharians; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: PPPoFR
> >
> > I would place it on the loopback, the interface with an IP address.
> >
> >
> > On 7/5/07, Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I will take a punt and say the the loopback.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Eric Dobyns" <eric_dobyns@yahoo.com>
> > > To: "'Narbik Kocharians'" <narbikk@gmail.com>; "'Gary Duncanson'"
> > > <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
> > > Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 10:18 PM
> > > Subject: RE: PPPoFR
> > >
> > >
> > > > Here's a question for you:
> > > >
> > > > If I were going to add the command "ip ospf 1 area 0" to one of
> the
> > > > interfaces for that frame link, would I add it to the serial
> > > subinterface,
> > > > the virtual template or the loopback?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> Behalf
> > Of
> > > > Narbik Kocharians
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 1:58 PM
> > > > To: Gary Duncanson
> > > > Cc: Eric Dobyns; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Re: PPPoFR
> > > >
> > > > No worries mate
> > > >
> > > > On 7/4/07, Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks Narbik, and thanks Eric for the config you posted.
> > > >>
> > > >> I can see how you would get a reply using the loopback
interface.
> > > >>
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >>
> > > >> *From:* Narbik Kocharians <narbikk@gmail.com>
> > > >> *To:* Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
> > > >> *Cc:* eric_dobyns@yahoo.com ; Scott Morris
> <smorris@ipexpert.com> ;
> > > >> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 04, 2007 8:38 PM
> > > >> *Subject:* Re: PPPoFR
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I see your point, but this will also satisfy the requirement.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 7/4/07, Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > No Advanced R&S Workbook here, but a similar situation did
come
> up
> > on
> > > >> > lab 3
> > > >> > in my IPExpert Version 9.0 Workbook by Scott Morris starting
on
> > page
> > > >> > 43!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Does the ' you will be pinging another interface' hold up
then
> if
> > you
> > > >> > use
> > > >> > ipunnumbered?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> > From: "Eric Dobyns" < eric_dobyns@yahoo.com>
> > > >> > To: "'Gary Duncanson'" <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>;
> "'Narbik
> > > >> > Kocharians'" <narbikk@gmail.com>
> > > >> > Cc: <swm@emanon.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com >
> > > >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:44 PM
> > > >> > Subject: RE: PPPoFR
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > That would be Lab 7 in your CCIE Advanced R&S Workbook, by
> Narbik
> > > >> > > Kocharians....starting on page 60...
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]
On
> > > Behalf
> > > >> > Of
> > > >> > > Gary
> > > >> > > Duncanson
> > > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 10:46 AM
> > > >> > > To: Narbik Kocharians
> > > >> > > Cc: swm@emanon.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >> > > Subject: Re: PPPoFR
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Hi Narbik,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Now that's interesting, how will that work for PPPoFR? How
> does
> > > that
> > > >> > > satisfy
> > > >> > > the need to ping your own IP address in terms of the IP
> address
> > > >> > assigned
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > your physical or subinterface used for a FR PVC?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Regards
> > > >> > > Gary
> > > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> > > From: Narbik Kocharians
> > > >> > > To: Gary Duncanson
> > > >> > > Cc: Phillip Day ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 6:11 PM
> > > >> > > Subject: Re: PPPoFR
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Use the "ip unnumbered lo0" to assign an IP address, that
> way
> > you
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > be
> > > >> > > able to ping your own IP address.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 7/4/07, Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >> > > Had this one myself recently.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > This insight came from Scott Morris..
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 'If you are doing PPPoFR, you will never be able to ping
> your
> > > own
> > > >> > IP
> > > >> > > address.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > (Unless you use unnumbered from another interface, but
> > > technically
> > > >> > then
> > > >> > > you
> > > >> > > are pinging that one!)'
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> > > From: "Phillip Day" < Phillip.Day@telindus.co.uk>
> > > >> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 11:13 AM
> > > >> > > Subject: PPPoFR
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Does anyone know of an obvious way I'm missing to ping
> your
> > > >> > > local
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > interface on a PPPoFR link? And in a lab is it likely
> you
> > > would
> > > >> > need
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > be able to?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Phill Day
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is
> for
> > the
> > > >> > > intended
> > > >> > > > recipient only. If misdirected, please notify us by
> > telephone
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > confirm
> > > >> > > > that it has been deleted from your system and any
copies
> > > >> > destroyed.
> > > >> > > If
> > > >> > > > you
> > > >> > > > are not the intended recipient you are strictly
> prohibited
> > > from
> > > >> > > using,
> > > >> > > > printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this
> e-mail
> > > or
> > > >> > any
> > > >> > > > information contained in it. We use reasonable
> endeavours
> > to
> > > >> > virus
> > > >> > > scan
> > > >> > > > all
> > > >> > > > e-mails leaving the Company but no warranty is given
> that
> > this
> > > >> > e-mail
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > any
> > > >> > > > attachments are virus free. You should undertake your
> own
> > > virus
> > > >> > > checking.
> > > >> > > > The right to monitor e-mail communications through our
> > network
> > > >> > > is
> > > >> > > reserved
> > > >> > > > by
> > > >> > > > us.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 18 2007 - 08:17:39 ART