Hi Samir, I believe things should be operating as expected. Only non-shamlinks care about the domainid:
If it wasn't a shamlink, and the domain ids were different, it would appear as an E2 route. If it wasnt a shamlink and the domain ids were the same it should appear as an inter-area route. If it was a shamlink and the domain ids were different, it would appear as an intra-area route. If it was a shamlink and the domain ids were the same, it would appear as an intra-area route. Cheers, Adam On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Samir Idris <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I am totally confused now. I have the following topology: > > R1 --- OSPF (Area 0) ----CE --- OSPF (Area 51) --- R5 ----- MBGP ------ R4 > ---- OSPF (Area 1) --- CE ---- OSPF (Area 1) ---- R2 > > R5 = R4 = PE > > From left to right: > > I have configuredf a virtual-link from CE to R5. R5 to R4 a sham-link. > Configuration is as follows: > > R5: > > router ospf 18 vrf vpn30 > router-id 30.30.5.5 > log-adjacency-changes > area 0 sham-link 30.30.100.5 30.30.100.4 (the loopback interfaces that are > NOT advertised into OSPF but only BGP) > area 51 virtual-link 30.30.7.7 > network 30.30.0.130 0.0.0.0 area 51 > > R4: > > router ospf 9 vrf vpn30 > router-id 30.30.4.4 > log-adjacency-changes > area 0 sham-link 30.30.100.4 30.30.100.5 > network 30.30.128.130 0.0.0.0 area 1 > > Loopback for R1 = 30.30.1.1 > Loopback for R2 = 30.30.2.2 > > Now here is what I think should be happening, since different Process IDs > on > both R4 and R5, IOS will treat them as differ domain-id and hence the route > when taken from the remote CEs should be E2 routes where as I see them as > follows: > > R4(config-router)#do sh ip route vrf vpn30 30.30.1.1 > Routing entry for 30.30.1.1/32 > Known via "ospf 9", distance 110, metric 22, type *intra area > * Last update from 30.30.5.5 00:09:40 ago > Routing Descriptor Blocks: > * 30.30.5.5 (Default-IP-Routing-Table), from 30.30.1.1, 00:09:40 ago > Route metric is 22, traffic share count is 1 > R5(config-router)#do sh ip route vrf vpn30 30.30.2.2 > Routing entry for 30.30.2.2/32 > Known via "ospf 18", distance 110, metric 32, type *inter area* > Last update from 30.30.4.4 00:10:04 ago > Routing Descriptor Blocks: > * 30.30.4.4 (Default-IP-Routing-Table), from 30.30.4.4, 00:10:04 ago > Route metric is 32, traffic share count is 1 > No matter what I do, if I change the process IDs at both R4 and R5 to be > similar, the routes remain the same. I have tried using same process ID > with different domain-id too but to no avail. Can anyone point out my > mistake here? With different Proccess ID I expect the routes to be E2. > > Sorry for bringing this up again. > > Regards, > -- > Samir Idris > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
