From: David Luu (wicked01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 19 2002 - 05:34:32 GMT-3
on an interface the default ospf priority is 1
when specifying neighbors in an nbma environment, the default is 0
At 03:39 PM 5/19/2002 +0800, Schwantz wrote:
>David,
>
>If that is the case, what does Doyle mean when he says that the default
>priority is 0 ?
>
>Kevin
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Luu" <wicked01@ix.netcom.com>
>To: "Kevin Mitnick" <kevin_ross46@yahoo.co.uk>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 2:45 PM
>Subject: Re: Jeff Doyle pg 558 OSPF defauly priority 0
>
>
> > default priority is 1, and yes priority 0 does not let it participate in
> > the DR selection
> >
> > At 06:37 AM 5/19/2002 +0100, Kevin Mitnick wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I was reading page 558 of Jeff Doyle's Routing TCP/IP Volume 1 and came
> > >across this paragraph.
> > >
> > >"The neighbor command configures Rembrandt with the IP addresses of the
> > >interfaces of its three neighbors. The default priority is zero; by not
> > >changing the default at Rembrandt, none of its neighbors is eligible to
> > >become the DR or BDR?
> > >
> > >Doesn't having priority zero make a router ineligible to be DR or BDR ?
> > >
> > >When I read Solie ( CCIE Practical Studies page 762), it wrote
> > >
> > >"The hub router of the multipoint network, or the router that has a PVC
> > >to each site, should be statically configured as the DR. To accomplish
> > >this, set the priority of the spoke or remote routers to 0. A priority
> > >of 0 tells OSPF that this interface or neighbor will not participate in
> > >the DR/BDR election process"
> > >
> > >Am I missing something ? Could someone help clarify the above two
> > >statements ? I read the archives and someone said that it might have
> > >something to do with the nieghbor statements. However, both books used
> > >the neighbor statements to identify their neigbors.
> > >
> > >Kevin
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:59:01 GMT-3