From: Amit Oberoi (amiobero@cisco.com)
Date: Fri May 09 2008 - 10:55:46 ART
Using them you get more control over what you are trying to achieve. Virtual
Links is a good example. If you analyze and practice the topologies you ll
gradually realize it's saving and not wasting time coz you know what the
router id on the neighbor would be instead of finding it out. They might
change as well if you add lop back addresses and screw up the whole thing
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Amit Oberoi
CISCO TAC Engineer-VPN
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mon - Fri: 5.00 AM to 12.00 PM (PST)
amiobero@cisco.com
1-212-329-2092 Ext. - 2127
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Shine
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 3:01 PM
To: 'Huan Pham'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Hard-coding Router-id
BGP synchronization rule says the OSPF and BGP router IDs must match- not
relevant if the synchronization is turned off.
EIGRP router IDs are useful when redistributing.
Other than these, I can't actually think of any other purpose of having
router IDs, for these protocols.
-Shine
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Huan
Pham
Sent: Friday, 9 May 2008 7:19 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Hard-coding Router-id
GS,
The workbook I use recommends to hardcode router-id for every routing
protocol (OSPF, EIGRP, BGP), unless the scenario does not allow it. This
practice is time consuming (if applied for all routers, and all routing
protocols), and also error-prone as well, so I am reluctant to do it, unless
I really need to.
I do see the need for OSPF as virtual-links use router ID. If router-id
change (e.g. after router reload) virtual-links will fail.
However, I do not see any need for BGP and EIGRP. Can anyone tell me a
common BGP or EIGRP scenario where we need to fix router-id? Thanks.
Huan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2008 - 06:59:16 ART