From: raul raul (juvenn@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri May 09 2008 - 11:13:25 ART
most of the time you not allowed to hard code unless there is virtual link involved.I also prefer to hard code but we need to stick to Requirement
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 08:06:35 -0600> From: madsen.jason@gmail.com> To: amiobero@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Hard-coding Router-id> CC: shinepjoseph@iprimus.com.au; pnhuan@yahoo.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com> > 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> > gradual!
ly 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 O
f> > 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> > > _______________________________________________________________________> 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