Parkhurst's example didn't work on my routers either, for what it's worth. With the spoke configured with a neighbor it tried to elect a BDR and DR, using unicast packets to its neighbor.
The hub router, which was using subinterfaces, seemed to ignore these pleas to be neighborly. They didn't become neighbors and the routing table was missing OSPF routes. I changed the spoke to point-to-multipoint and the spoke started sending multicasts to 224.0.0.5. No BDR or DR was established, but neighborliness was established, and OSPF routes got installed. I forgot to keep the debug output, but I think that's what happened and that is what should happen, from what I understand. Priscilla The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > ""Mike"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Since the spoke routers are NBMA, multicast hello's will not > locate the > > neighbor. The ospf router neighbor command must be used to > manually > identify > > the neighbor so routing updates can be exchanged. I'm not > sure why you > > would want to implement in this way, but it will work. > > Parkhurst is attempting to tach a lesson about the neighbor > statement. > Unfortunately, the lesson appears not be be complete. > > You say it should work. So I srt this one up again. Observe: > > Router 1 OSPF database excerpt > > OSPF Router with ID (1.1.1.1) (Process ID 1) > > Router Link States (Area 0) > > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum > Link count > 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.1 138 0x80000003 0x005E7F > 4 > 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 214 0x80000004 0x00D1F1 > 1 > 206.6.6.6 206.6.6.6 138 0x80000002 0x00C348 > 1 > > > Router 1 routing table: > > Gateway of last resort is not set > > 1.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 1.1.1.1 is directly connected, Loopback1 > 10.0.0.0/30 is subnetted, 2 subnets > C 10.1.1.0 is directly connected, Serial1.2 > C 10.1.1.4 is directly connected, Serial1.3 > R1# > > > > Router 2 OSPF database excerpt > > OSPF Router with ID (2.2.2.2) (Process ID 1) > > Router Link States (Area 0) > > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum > Link count > 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.1 198 0x80000003 0x5E7F > 4 > 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 273 0x80000004 0xD1F1 > 1 > 206.6.6.6 206.6.6.6 199 0x80000002 0xC348 > 1 > > Router 2 routing table: > > 2.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 2.2.2.2 is directly connected, Loopback1 > 10.0.0.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 10.1.1.0 is directly connected, Serial1 > R2# > > > Router 3 OSPF database excerpt > > OSPF Router with ID (206.6.6.6) (Process ID 1) > > Router Link States (Area 0) > > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum > Link count > 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.1 238 0x80000003 0x5E7F > 4 > 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 313 0x80000004 0xD1F1 > 1 > 206.6.6.6 206.6.6.6 238 0x80000002 0xC348 > 1 > > Router 3 routing table > > Gateway of last resort is not set > > 3.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 3.3.3.3 is directly connected, Loopback0 > 10.0.0.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 10.1.1.4 is directly connected, Serial1 > R3# > > > Change the spoke ospf network types from non broadcast to > point-to-multipoint and ( sample from one router, but it is > true for all:) > pops right up: > > 01:16:07: OSPF: Database request to 2.2.2.2 > 01:16:07: OSPF: sent LS REQ packet to 10.1.1.2, length 12 > 01:16:07: OSPF: Synchronized with 206.6.6.6 on Serial1.3, state > FULL > 01:16:07: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 206.6.6.6 on Serial1.3 > from LOADING > to > FULL, Loading Done > 01 > R1#:16:07: OSPF: Rcv DBD from 2.2.2.2 on Serial1.2 seq 0x9C5 > opt 0x42 flag > 0x1 l > en 32 mtu 1500 state EXCHANGE > 01:16:07: OSPF: Exchange Done with 2.2.2.2 on Serial1.2 > 01:16:07: OSPF: Send DBD to 2.2.2.2 on Serial1.2 seq 0x9C5 opt > 0x42 flag 0x0 > len > 32 > 01:16:07: OSPF: Synchronized with 2.2.2.2 on Serial1.2, state > FULL > 01:16:07: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 2.2.2.2 on Serial1.2 > from LOADING > to FU > LL, Loading Done > R1# > > > and routing table has ospf routes: > > Gateway of last resort is not set > > 1.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 1.1.1.1 is directly connected, Loopback1 > 2.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets > O IA 2.2.2.2 [110/65] via 10.1.1.2, 00:00:02, Serial1.2 > 3.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets > O IA 3.3.3.3 [110/65] via 10.1.1.6, 00:00:02, Serial1.3 > 10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 4 subnets, 2 masks > O 10.1.1.2/32 [110/64] via 10.1.1.2, 00:00:02, Serial1.2 > C 10.1.1.0/30 is directly connected, Serial1.2 > O 10.1.1.6/32 [110/64] via 10.1.1.6, 00:00:03, Serial1.3 > C 10.1.1.4/30 is directly connected, Serial1.3 > R1# > > as to whether this is one of the vagueries of the IOS versions > I am running, > I cannot say. But even speaking teoretically, a point-to-point > link will not > form a proper adjacency with an NMBA link, neighbor staement or > no. Each > side thinks the other is like itself, and they are not the same. > > Examples to the contrary are welcome. > > > > > > > Regards > > > > ""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in > > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Ran into something in Parkhurst's OSPF book while studying > tonight. > > Looking > > > for validation of my observation. > > > > > > The example: OSPF over frame relay > > > > > > The topology: hub and spoke, with a twist. The hub uses > subinterfaces ( > > one > > > to each spoke router ) and the spokes use physical > interfaces. > > > > > > Now, the Parkhurst examples show leaving the physical > interfaces as ospf > > > type non-broadcast, change the ospf timers on the > subinterfaces, place > > > neighbor statements on the spoke routers ( physical > interfaces ) and all > > is > > > well. > > > > > > Except I don't believe it works this way. > > > > > > The subinterfaces are point-to-point networks, and expect > the other side > > to > > > be a point-to-point connection and adjacency. the physical > interfaces > are > > > non-broadcast, and expect DR elections to occur, something > the router > with > > > the subinterfaces will not do. > > > > > > I believe the correct solution is to make the physical > interfaces ospf > > type > > > point-to-multipoint. > > > > > > An alternative is to change the physical interfaces to ospf > > point-to-point. > > > > > > In any case - can anyone else verify what I see and do not > see - that > > > Parkhurst chapter 11, example 3, pages 275-279 answer is > incomplete? > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > -- > > > TANSTAAFL > > > "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65609&t=65532 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
