From: Jason Madsen (madsen.jason@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 23 2008 - 23:05:43 ARST
ok I take back part of what I said...with "ip ospf net non" an adjacency
doesn't seem to form without using "neighbor" on both ends of the link.
With "ip ospf net point-to-multi non" it didn't seem to matter either way.
Jason
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Jason Madsen <madsen.jason@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> To be officially correct, do we need to use the "neighbor" command on one
> side of each link or on both sides of each link? From what I've seen OSPF
> always seems to work just fine with "neighbor" on one end of the link only
> and as a matter of face I've read more than one writeup stating that
> configuring it on both ends of a link rather than just one can actually
> cause problems in some scenarios.
>
> This is strictly an "approved in the lab" type question. As I stated, I've
> never had issues with just configuring this command on one end of a given
> link without any issues. I did find one somewhat vague statement in the
> Command Reference that leads me to believe that in Cisco's eyes we are to
> use this command on both ends of a link for it to be "correct". Here is the
> statement:
>
> *"One neighbor entry must be included in the Cisco IOS software
> configuration for each known nonbroadcast network neighbor*" (
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/iproute/command/reference/irp_osp2.html#wp1013124
> ).
>
> I guess technically this statement would lead me to believe that it should
> be on both ends. Anyone have any insight as to what would be "correct" in
> a lab scenario?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 01 2008 - 15:35:22 ARST