From: Rick (ccie_2003@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 13:24:43 GMT-3
I was not aware you could do this if it was not defined in your IGP address
space from what I read somewhere...
That is a great idea though!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Olive, Darren" <Darren.Olive@globalcrossing.com>
To: "'Snow, Mark'" <Mark.Snow@newcome.com>
Cc: "Ccielab (E-mail)" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: Interfaces not specifically defined ...
> Mark
>
> I presume that you are anticipating that Cisco will not allow the use of
the
> router-id configuration command. This is more convenient as you can give
r1
> a router-id of 1.1.1.1 & r2 a router-id of 2.2.2.2 etc. What could be more
> straightforward!
> These router-id's are not valid IP addresses so will not affect anything
> else in your configurations.
>
> Darren
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Snow, Mark [mailto:Mark.Snow@newcome.com]
> Sent: 16 September 2002 14:02
> To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: Interfaces not specifically defined ...
>
> Hopefully without violating and NDA, does anyone know if Cisco will make
> marks against you if you introduce Loopback interfaces not SPECIFICALLY
> defined in the objectives, into your IGP on that given router? Such as
> introducing a new loopback for every router to use as an easy router-id
for
> whatever, bgp, ospf, dlsw ...??
>
> J/W
>
> > Mark Snow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:53 GMT-3