From: Ronnie Angello (ronnie.angello@gmail.com)
Date: Fri May 09 2008 - 11:21:29 ART
If it doesn't say that you can't, then you can! It is definitely good
practice to do so...
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Jason Madsen <madsen.jason@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
-- Ronald Angello CCIE #17846
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2008 - 06:59:16 ART