Priscilla, On my lab a while ago I had the same problem. Once I had matching OSPF timers, the FR and the Ethernet routers managed to form adjacencies. Not too sure why, but it worked.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Priscilla Oppenheimer Sent: 04 February 2002 23:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OSPF DR problem [7:34379] At 05:33 PM 2/4/02, Walter Rogowski wrote: >Compare the OSPF hello interval on the FR interfaces with that on the >Ethernet interfaces... I think they were different but that's normal, isn't it? The Hello timer for Ethernet is 10 seconds. For non-broadcast networks it's 30 seconds. The Frame Relay cloud was configured as point-to-point links. The Ethernet routers formed an adjacency. The FR routers formed adjacencies. The Ethernet routers simply failed to tell the FR side about the Ethernet LAN!! This was a remote lab that I only used for a few hours and now I'm not on it anymore. I will get back in soon and do some more research. Thanks for everyone's suggestions. Priscilla >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of >John Neiberger >Sent: 04 February 2002 22:03 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: OSPF DR problem [7:34379] > > >Priscilla, > >I can't think of anything that could have been broken by using the ip >ospf priority command. Unless you've run into some sort of bug I'm >guessing that there must be another issue. Were you playing around >with the loopback addresses? Do you have any virtual links configured? >I'm just wondering if you configured something that depended on a >static router ID and by adding or changing a loopback you've confused >one or two of the other routers. > >You mentioned that the frame relay interface is configured as >point-to-point. Is the opposite side configured the same way? It must >be since you said the adjacencies are forming...nevermind. Hmm... > >Are the missing routes in the OSPF database, just not in the routing >table? If so, check out this link: > >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/26.html > >I can't think of any one thing that describes this issue but I'll keep >pondering... > >John > > >>> "Priscilla Oppenheimer" 2/4/02 2:30:35 PM > >>> >Hi Group Study, > >Playing with IP OSPF priority to influence which router became the >Designated Router (DR) caused routing problems for me in a recent bout >with a lab exercise. Can anyone help me understand if I did something >wrong? > >I have 2 routers on an Ethernet LAN. Both of them also have WAN >connections to remote sites. R1 has a Frame Relay link to the corporate >"cloud" via its S0 port. S0 is configured as "ip ospf network >point-to-point." > >R2 has an ISDN link to yet another router, R3. This link is configured >as an OSPF point-to-point demand circuit. > >R1 and R2 are connected via an Ethernet switch. My goal was to make >sure R1 became the DR on Ethernet. Both routers have loopbacks, but >R2's is higher, so to make sure R2 did not become the DR, I configured >it with: > >ip ospf priority 0 > >R1 then did indeed become the DR on the Ethernet LAN because it was >using the default priority 1. > >Now, finally to the question...... On the other side of the ISDN and >across the Frame Relay cloud, I couldn't see the Ethernet LAN in the >routing table. Routers formed adjacencies correctly and could reach >most networks, but not that darn Ethernet LAN. R1 and R2 on the >Ethernet LAN formed an > >adjacency and could see the rest of the internetwork. > >Could I have broken something by playing with the priority?? > >Thanks for your help. > >Priscilla > > > >________________________ > >Priscilla Oppenheimer >http://www.priscilla.com ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34403&t=34379 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
