Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>
> Peter van Oene wrote:
> > >
> > > Nov 14 11:51:14.121 ESuT: OSPF: Rcv DBD from x.x.x.x on
> > Channel6/0 seq
> > > 0x3DCDF2DA opt 0x2 flag 0x7 len 32 mtu 0 state EXCHANGE
> > > Nov 14 11:51:14.121 ESuT: OSPF: Send DBD to x.x.x.x on
> > Channel6/0 seq
> > > 0x3DCD
> > Both agree on the stubbiness of the area, so that
> > should
> > be fine. Bit 3 is the O bit and setting it refers to ones
> > capability
> > with opaque LSAs.
>
> Calling it Bit 3 is confusing. It's in the other nibble, for one thing.
>
Agree. For some reason I decided to start counting le
Peter van Oene wrote:
> >
> > Nov 14 11:51:14.121 ESuT: OSPF: Rcv DBD from x.x.x.x on
> Channel6/0 seq
> > 0x3DCDF2DA opt 0x2 flag 0x7 len 32 mtu 0 state EXCHANGE
> > Nov 14 11:51:14.121 ESuT: OSPF: Send DBD to x.x.x.x on
> Channel6/0 seq
> > 0x3DCDF2DA opt 0x42 flag 0x2 len 1472
> My money is on
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 20:27, Jenny McLeod wrote:
> OK, I'll admit this is a real-life problem, not strictly a study question.
Ack, I seem to have stirred something up here :-) I really didn't
object to real life scenarios, just those that are ultra specific to a
given network. Anyway, onward and
I must admit that I only quickly scanned your post the first time and
assumed that the trouble was MTU size.
The "IP OSPF MTU-IGNORE" command (IOS 12.1(3))is a drastic measure for rare
occasions, but Cisco IOS does not allow changes to the physical MTU size, so
if you did have a mismatch (with IOS
_ OneZero543 _ wrote:
>
> Why Not Try - "IP OSPF MTU-IGNORE" on the router(s). Don't try
> matching 4096.
> Later
'Cause I think it would have to be put on the mainframe end, and I doubt
that such a knob exists there.
In any case, since this is *not* a Cisco to Cisco connection, but Cisco to
main
Why Not Try - "IP OSPF MTU-IGNORE" on the router(s). Don't try matching 4096.
Later
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57421&t=57410
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.htm
Sniffer on a CIP? Not that I'm aware of.
Unfortunately I can't really do any detailed debugging on the router,
either, as it's a core router and crashing it due to overloading with
debugging would make me rather unpopular.
I don't believe a DR/BDR is required on this link - it's set to 0.0.0.0 for
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>
> Jenny McLeod wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'll admit this is a real-life problem, not strictly a
> > study question.
> > I have a couple of OSPF adjacencies that refuse to start up.
> > Just to make this entertaining, these are not router to router
> > - they are Cisco to
It looks like the options in the packets do not march. Any way to get a
sniffer on there to see what each is sending as options. It could also be a
priority issue if the network is a broadcast/nbma network where neither is
being elected a DR? Finally, could a checksum be bad?
--
RFC 1149 Compl
Jenny McLeod wrote:
>
> OK, I'll admit this is a real-life problem, not strictly a
> study question.
> I have a couple of OSPF adjacencies that refuse to start up.
> Just to make this entertaining, these are not router to router
> - they are Cisco to mainframe, over a CIP.
> Five IP stacks neighb
OK, I'll admit this is a real-life problem, not strictly a study question.
I have a couple of OSPF adjacencies that refuse to start up. Just to make
this entertaining, these are not router to router - they are Cisco to
mainframe, over a CIP.
Five IP stacks neighbour the router - two are OK, three
12 matches
Mail list logo
