Re: Here's a good OSPF question

Nope. I have a vrf-lite situation. Multiple OSPF process and multiple vrfs.
I can't burn an interface (or port channel) per vrf.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Joe Astorino <joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> Alternative: Instead of SVI's is it possible to make the cross switch
> link an L3 etherchannel instead? Then you could run OSPF directly on the
> etherchannel and the cost would dynamically change with the bandwidth of
> the etherchannel
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Joe Astorino <joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Not that I know of, other than like you said an EEM hack or something.
>> The bandwidth will strictly be based on the OSPF cost of the L3 interface,
>> which is derived from the bandwidth of the interface OSPF is running on by
>> default or by the "ip ospf cost" interface command.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Michael Kiefer <mjkiefer_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I have some switches with 802.1Q port-channels between them. Routing is
>>> done on the SVIs of the switches.
>>>
>>> Is there anyway other than EEM or some hack to make OSPF cost of the SVI
>>> adjust based on the bandwidth of the underlying 802.1Q layer 2 port
>>> channels?
>>>
>>> AFAIK, the answer is "no".
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Joe Astorino
>> CCIE #24347
>> Blog: http://astorinonetworks.com
>>
>> "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Joe Astorino
> CCIE #24347
> Blog: http://astorinonetworks.com
>
> "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Nov 15 2011 - 15:24:41 ART