From: Jason Guy \(jguy\) (jguy@cisco.com)
Date: Thu Jul 05 2007 - 18:39:36 ART
Gary,
One correction to what you said. If using the ospf interface command to
enable OSPF on an interface, you must put it on the Virtual template so
it is copied to the virtual-access interface. The loopback is just
providing the address OSPF will use in the updates if you use
unnumbered. The command is just the manual method of indicating which
interface runs OSPF.
Sorry for any confusion,
Jason
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Duncanson [mailto:gary.duncanson@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:30 PM
> To: Jason Guy (jguy)
> Cc: swm@emanon.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: PPPoFR
>
> Thanks Jason.
>
> So according to yourself and Scott I take the following out of all of
> this..
>
> virtual-template is not an interface
> virtual-template provides 'operation' of virtual-access interface
thanks
> to
> commands in VT.
>
> virtual-access is a virtual interface..
>
> With the VA sharing the same address as the loopback, ospf is enabled
on
> the
> loopback and not the VA.
>
> Getting late here. Time for a pint :)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Guy (jguy)" <jguy@cisco.com>
> To: "Gary Duncanson" <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
> Cc: <swm@emanon.com>; "Eric Dobyns" <eric_dobyns@yahoo.com>; "Narbik
> Kocharians" <narbikk@gmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 7:20 PM
> Subject: RE: PPPoFR
>
>
> 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 - 08:17:40 ART