From: Jason Madsen (madsen.jason@gmail.com)
Date: Fri May 09 2008 - 11:06:35 ART
Amit, great point about the addition of loopback interfaces. That could
most certainly screw up (change) router IDs. Does anyone know whether or
not we are allowed to manually specify router IDs if the lab instructions
don't specifically state to do so?
I personally prefer to hardcode them, but I'm wondering if doing so when not
specified would be a harmless "over-config" or if they'd consider it a
misconfiguration or something and possibly deduct points?
Anyone with any experiences that can be talked about?
Jason
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Amit Oberoi <amiobero@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2008 - 06:59:16 ART