From: Anthony Pace (anthonypace@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jul 19 2002 - 20:37:13 GMT-3
Why is point-to-multipoint considered a good candiate for mixtures of
interface types? Is it because you avoid nameing neigbors, using
broadcast on the map, and setting priority?
Why does it generate the /32 routes?
Anthony PAce
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:05:27 +1000, "Nick Shah" <nshah@connect.com.au>
said:
> Ademola
>
> * Is R5 the DR if using non-broadcast type, you only need to specify
> neighbor commands on this router
> * Or Use point-to-multipoint instead to eliminate DR issues
> * There is MD5 authentication in the area.
> * Is there a network type mismatch among the 3 routers ?
>
> Check all this stuff.
>
> rgds
> Nick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ademola Osindero" <osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:06 AM
> Subject: ospf routes in database not in route table
>
>
> > Hi group,
> >
> > Can there be any reason why a route existing in an OSPF database will not
> > be installed in the route table?
> >
> > While practicing Cyscoexeprt lab, I mad routers r2, r5 and r6 to have ip
> > ospf net non-broadcast and also configured there neighbors' addresses.
> This
> > was all in the quest to modify the dead interval to 120seconds. But
> > apparently no ospf route was installed on r2 except for routes emanating
> > from r1. Could there be any reason for this?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Osindero Ademola
> > Schlumberger Network Solutions
> > Tel: 234 1 261 0446 Ext 5427
> > Fax 234 1 262 1034
> > email:osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:37 GMT-3