From: ccie1101 (ccie1101@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Aug 14 2007 - 12:50:42 ART
Okay doks, your explanation makes sense .... It sliped my mind that if it
was non-broadcast, I would need to configure the neighbor command .... :P
Thanks mate,
cheers,
ccie1101.
On 8/14/07, Herbert Maosa <asawilunda@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I have not done this lab, however if the question does not put any
> constraint on using a particular ospf network type, my personal preference
> is ot use point-to-point or point-to-Multipoint, depending on what the PVCs
> and IP subnetting look like.
>
> Staying with the default NMBA means you have to worry about configuring
> static neighbors, and adjusting interface priorities to influence DR
> election. Using the other types means you do not have to worry about all
> this and life gets sweeter. Indeed most documentation advises against using
> NMBA and *neighbor* commands unless you are using old code that does not
> have the *ip ospf network* command.
>
> *Or if the scenario restricts you from changing this.*
>
> my two cents worth.
>
> Herbert.
>
>
> On 8/14/07, ccie1101 <ccie1101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > For those of you who have done this lab already, I would like to
> > check
> > why do we need to make the FR connection from R4 to R5 a ospf network
> > type
> > of point-to-point ? The default type of non-broadcast on the FR would be
> > fine right since the question did not specifically asked it to be
> > a point-to-point link .....
> >
> > It works as a ospf network type of non-broadcast ..... So could it be
> >
> > there just for fun ..... :P or am I not seeing something ....
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > ccie1101.
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kindest regards,
> hm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:11 ART