From: Narbik Kocharians (narbikk@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Feb 01 2009 - 03:04:11 ARST
Hobbs,
That's exactly what i was saying.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Narbik Kocharians <narbikk@gmail.com>wrote:
> hahahaha
> AGE
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:49 PM, swm@emanon.com <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahhhh... The fun stuff. Always good to cause some consternation. :)
>>
>> RFC 3630 - OSPF extensions for TE actually makes a few references to BGP
>> as well, namely having to do with the BGP Router ID being set as the
>> next-hop address (peer-id) for correlation purposes.
>>
>> So it looks like this is built into code now.
>>
>> Always good to know although I apparantly haven't been devious enough
>> lately to run into a problem with it! (grin)
>>
>> But good to have the routers!
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> ---- Message from Hobbs <deadheadblues@gmail.com> at 2009-01-31 19:18:19
>> ------
>> >Well since I got rack session going on:
>> >
>> >R6(config)#router bgp 256
>> >R6(config-router)#bgp router-id 0.0.0.1
>> >%Invalid router-id 0.0.0.1
>> >R6(config-router)#bgp router-id 255.255.255.255
>> >%Invalid router-id 255.255.255.255
>> >R6(config-router)#bgp router-id 224.0.0.1
>> >%Invalid router-id 224.0.0.1
>> >R6(config-router)#bgp router-id 223.255.255.255
>> >R6(config-router)#
>> >
>> >R6#sho ver | inc bin
>> >System image file is "flash:c2800nm-adventerprisek9-mz.124-3a.bin"
>> >
>> >
>> >}\/\/{
>> >| |
>> >(.)(.)
>> >| C |)
>> >(___/|
>> > )__|
>> > / \\
>> > / \\
>> >
>> >:D
>> >
>> >On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:56 PM, swm@emanon.com <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
>> >> The router-id in both is simply a 32-bit number.
>> >>
>> >> Your call.
>> >>
>> >> Scott
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---- Message from "ciscozest" <ciscozest@gmail.com> at 2009-02-01
>> 08:11:46
>> >> ------
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>So in case of OSPF and BGP exist on the same router, does the router ID
>> must
>> >> be pingable or just a valid IPv4 address?
>> >>>Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>From: Narbik Kocharians [mailto:narbikk@gmail.com]
>> >>>Sent: Sunday, 1 February 2009 4:26 AM
>> >>>To: ciscozest
>> >>>Cc: swm@emanon.com; Jared Scrivener; Jason Madsen; Cisco
>> certification; Cisco
>> >> certification
>> >>>Subject: Re: about OSPF router ID
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>I totally agree with Scott, the OSPF router id is a 32 bit dotted
>> decimal
>> >> number, it can be an IPv4 address, but it can also be any dotted
>> decimal
>> >> number like "0.0.0.1" for R1 and so forth.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>One problem that you may run in to (In a CCIE LAB) is when you have
>> OSPF and
>> >> BGP with synchronization enabled in an AS, the router that
>> redistributes the
>> >> BGP routes into OSPF must have the same router-id configured on both
>> routing
>> >> protocols (meaning OSPF and BGP router-id must be identical on that
>> router)
>> >> and in this case you won't be able to use anything other than a valid
>> IP
>> >> address, because BGP's router-id must be a valid IP address.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Hope this helped.
>> >>>
>> >>>On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:57 AM, ciscozest <mailto:ciscozest@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>Dear Scott, Jared, Roy and Jason,
>> >>>
>> >>>Thank you all for the input. Really appreciate that. Have a nice
>> weekend :)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>-----Original Message-----
>> >>>From: mailto:swm@emanon.com [mailto:mailto:swm@emanon.com ]
>> >>>Sent: Saturday, 31 January 2009 3:23 PM
>> >>>To: Jared Scrivener; 'Jason Madsen'; 'ciscozest'
>> >>>Cc: 'Cisco certification'; 'Cisco certification'
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Subject: RE: about OSPF router ID
>> >>>
>> >>>Actually, it not only doesn't need to be pingable, but it doesn't even
>> need
>> >> to be a valid IPv4 address. It's simply a 32-bit number.
>> >>>
>> >>>If you're bored, make your router-id's 240.1.1.1, 240.1.1.2, 240.1.1.3,
>> etc.
>> >> Definitely can't put that on an IP interface... Definitely can't ping
>> it.
>> >> But it works just fine.
>> >>>
>> >>>Jared's got a point about name lookups, but on the other hand, if you
>> >> properly populate your DNS lookups you'll be good on that one!
>> >>>
>> >>>Real life, most people use a loopback, whatever your main management
>> >> interface happens to be. Just keeps things simple. But it's just a
>> 32-bit
>> >> number, so the fact that it relates to an actual IP address is for OUR
>> >> benefit, not the routers'!
>> >>>
>> >>>Scott
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>---- Message from "Jared Scrivener" <mailto:jscrivener@ipexpert.com >
>> at
>> >> 2009-01-30 21:25:18 ------
>> >>>>Whilst it is true that an OSPF Router ID doesn't have to be pingable,
>> it
>> >>>>generally makes life easier to use a reachable IP (normally Loopback
>> 0).
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Let's say that you are asked to also turn on "ip ospf domain-lookup"
>> which
>> >>>>will translate your neighbor's Router-ID into a DNS name (which will
>> either
>> >>>>be defined by a hosts file or received via DNS).
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If you do it via hosts entries and your are ALSO a DNS server then
>> your DNS
>> >>>>clients would receive an unreachable IP address when they ping via DNS
>> >> name.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I know that's a rare case, but given the nature of question
>> interdependency
>> >>>>on the lab (and the evil nature of workbook vendors) I personally use
>> L0 as
>> >>>>my OSPF Router-ID (and set it manually using the "router-id" command)
>> every
>> >>>>time unless otherwise directed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Cheers,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP
>> >>>>Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
>> >>>>Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
>> >>>>Fax: +1.810.454.0130
>> >>>>Mailto: mailto:jscrivener@ipexpert.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>-----Original Message-----
>> >>>>From: mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:mailto:
>> nobody@groupstudy.com ]
>> >> On Behalf Of
>> >>>>Jason Madsen
>> >>>>Sent: Friday, 30 January 2009 9:01 PM
>> >>>>To: ciscozest
>> >>>>Cc: Cisco certification; Cisco certification
>> >>>>Subject: Re: about OSPF router ID
>> >>>>
>> >>>>OSPF Router IDs can be any UNIQUE IPv4 address...they don't have to be
>> >>>>addresses assigned to an interface.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:56 PM, ciscozest <mailto:
>> ciscozest@gmail.com >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I read Cisco press book stated that OSPF router ID do not need to be
>> >>>>> pingable. In this case if I use a router ID which is not assigned
>> to any
>> >>>>> interface on that router, would this cause any issue such as OSPF
>> >>>>> adjacency,
>> >>>>> LSA table advertisement, etc? Has anyone do this before and can
>> enlighten
>> >>>>> me? Thanks.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net/"
>> >>>target="_blank
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>>_____________________________________________________________________
>> >>>>Subscription information: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/comserv.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>> >>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/
>> >>>Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.10/1905 - Release Date:
>> 2009/1/20
>> >> 14:34
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net/
>> >>>
>> >>>_______________________________________________________________________
>> >>>Subscription information may be found at:
>> >>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>--
>> >>>Narbik Kocharians
>> >>>CCSI#30832, CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
>> >>>http://www.MicronicsTraining.com <http://www.micronicstraining.com/>
>> www.MicronicsTraining.com <http://www.micronicstraining.com/>
>> >>>http://www.Net-Workbooks.com <http://www.net-workbooks.com/>
>> www.Net-Workbooks.com <http://www.net-workbooks.com/>
>> >>>Sr. Technical Instructor
>> >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >>>Checked by AVG i www.avg.com
>> >>>Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 i Release Date:
>> 01/30/09
>> >> 17:31:00
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________________________________
>> >> Subscription information may be found at:
>> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Narbik Kocharians
> CCSI#30832, CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
> www.MicronicsTraining.com <http://www.micronicstraining.com/>
> www.Net-Workbooks.com <http://www.net-workbooks.com/>
> Sr. Technical Instructor
>
-- Narbik Kocharians CCSI#30832, CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security) www.MicronicsTraining.com www.Net-Workbooks.com Sr. Technical InstructorBlogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:44:09 ARST