From: Anthony J Sequeira (asequeira@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Fri Oct 24 2008 - 12:53:30 ARST
Awesome post Narbik. Thanks!
It is so amazing how you can understand and play with these features for
years and someone can still show you something about it!
Just a quick clarification - R1 takes the PRIORITY command and the NEIGHBOR
command - and then does not use the NEIGHBOR command. This is a minor
correction to this portion of the post:
"*Note it does not take the priority command. It takes the command but it
does not use it.*"
On 10/24/08 9:45 AM, "Narbik Kocharians" <narbikk@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a hub and spoke you should configure the spokes with a priority of 0 so
> they wont participate in the DR election, and when you do that it should NOT
> take the neighbor command.
>
> R1#sh run int s0/0/0
> Building configuration...
> Current configuration : 138 bytes
> !
> interface Serial0/0/0
> ip address 1.1.1.1 255.0.0.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> * ip ospf priority 0*
> frame-relay map ip 1.1.1.2 102
> end
>
> *Now i will use the neighbor command*
> R1#conf t
> Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
> R1(config)#router ospf 1
> R1(config-router)#*neighbor 1.1.1.2
> *
> R1(config-router)#*do sh run | s router
> *router ospf 1
> log-adjacency-changes
> network 1.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
>
> *Note it does not take the priority command. It takes the command but it
> does not use it.*
>
> *On R2*
>
> R2#sh run int s0/0/0
> Building configuration...
> Current configuration : 118 bytes
> !
> interface Serial0/0/0
> ip address 1.1.1.2 255.0.0.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> frame-relay map ip 1.1.1.1 201
> end
>
> R2#sh run | s router
> router ospf 1
> log-adjacency-changes
> network 1.1.1.2 0.0.0.0 area 0
> network 20.2.2.2 0.0.0.0 area 0
> *neighbor 1.1.1.1*
>
> *Note it took the neighbor command because the priority is NOT 0*
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Joseph Brunner
> <joe@affirmedsystems.com>wrote:
>
>> Everything is very slow with dynamips... rent some rack time !
>>
>> -LOL
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> Jason Madsen
>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:07 PM
>> To: Cisco certification
>> Subject: Re: OSPF Neighbor CMD
>>
>> I stand corrected again...it did work, but it was VERY slow. I was testing
>> via Dynamips btw...
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Jason Madsen <madsen.jason@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
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