From: FCO.JAVIER TOME MORAN (fjtm@tid.es)
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 06:41:41 GMT-3
Hi all,
Not sure about how distance command works in OSPF. I am working in a
frame-relay hub an spoke environment with three routers R1, R2, and R5
(R5 as the hub). OSPF network-type has been set as point-to-multipoint
non-broadcast, and neighbor cost has been modified to use one of the
neighbors (R1) as the preferred path...
Here are my configs...
On R5...
********
router ospf 1
router-id 150.1.5.5
log-adjacency-changes
redistribute eigrp 10 metric-type 1 subnets
network 150.1.5.5 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 173.1.125.5 0.0.0.0 area 0 <--- This is ip addressing on
frame-relay
neighbor 173.1.125.1 cost 130
neighbor 173.1.125.2 cost 1562
distance 109 173.1.125.2 0.0.0.0 BGP_DLSW
ip access-list standard BGP_DLSW
permit 150.1.2.0 0.0.0.255
On R1...
********
router ospf 1
router-id 150.1.1.1
log-adjacency-changes
network 150.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 173.1.13.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 173.1.125.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 173.1.137.1 0.0.0.0 area 137
On R2...
********
router ospf 1
router-id 150.1.2.2
log-adjacency-changes
area 23 nssa default-information-originate metric 100
network 150.1.2.2 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 173.1.23.2 0.0.0.0 area 23
network 173.1.32.2 0.0.0.0 area 0
network 173.1.125.2 0.0.0.0 area 0
distance 109 173.1.125.5 0.0.0.0 BGP_DLSW
ip access-list standard BGP_DLSW
permit 150.1.5.0 0.0.0.255
My point is to make R2 (173.1.125.2) as the next-hop to R2 loopback
address on R5, and R5 (173.1.125.5) as the next-hop to R5 loopback
address on R2. This way I would force BGP and DLSW session to be
stablished over the low speed frame-relay circuit between R2 and R5,
overriding the cost of the circuit.
Nontheless, I get no change on the routing table of R5 and R2.
I have also tried using router-id as the source of the routing
information in the distance command (i.e "distance 109 150.1.2.2
0.0.0.0 BGP_DLSW" on router R5 and so on). With this configuration I
get the AD of the route change, but the next hop still points to R1.
I guess I have some missunderstanding on the technology. Could anyone
put some light on the issue?...
Thank you in advance
JT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:14 GMT-3