Hi, Yeah it is. Just played around with it a bit more. Even if you remove the network statement that assigns an interface to run the OSPF instance, the other one wont take over until you go into that instance and do a "no network ..." and then a "network ..." again. Then it will form an adjacency in the other instance.
Just one of those things i guess... Sincerely, Kim On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Jared Scrivener <[email protected]>wrote: > I hadn’t observed that before and it seems a little odd (although I don’t > have time to lab it up now so I’ll trust you have). > > > > I know that with OSPFv3 we should be able to run two separate processes on > the same interface to peer with two totally separate neighbors. That’s kind > of cool and perhaps just another reason to start deploying IPv6 ASAP. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP > > Sr. Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. > > URL: http://www.IPexpert.com > > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > > Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > > Mailto: [email protected] > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Kim Pedersen > *Sent:* Friday, 15 May 2009 4:18 AM > *To:* Joe Astorino > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Volume 3 Lab8 Section 3.3 > > > > Hi Joe, > > I have no doubt that you will :) > It seems when doing this, the interface will actually only show up in one > of the proccesses (the first one configured) at a time. A built in mechanism > for avoiding poor design choices i guess. > > Sincerely, > Kim Pedersen > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Joe Astorino <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > > > Thanks for the kind words, and we will be working hard to get you there as > well! Regarding your OSPF situation there, I honestly never tried doing two > OSPF processes and trying to put the same interface into area 0 in both > processes. Clearly, as you mention there it doesn't seem to work. I don't > know of any specific documentation to support that, but when in doubt lab it > up, thats the right mentality. > > > > What I was trying to explain to Robert was that in the event you have two > different area 0's in your diagram, but they are a quite a distance apart -- > One alternative option to creating a ton of virtual links would be to just > run one of them in a seperate OSPF process, and redistribute. This can come > in handy particuarly when the second area 0 that is all the way on the other > side of your network happens to also be on the edge of your OSPF domain as > well. Now, in that case we would be running two processes, but NOT be > running two OSPF processes on the same interface like you have here. > > > > Interesting stuff though! > > > > Regards, > > Joe Astorino > CCIE #24347 (R&S) > Sr. Support Engineer – IPexpert, Inc. > URL: http://www.IPexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Kim Pedersen [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2009 1:59 AM > *To:* Joe Astorino > *Cc:* Robert S Wyzykowski; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Volume 3 Lab8 Section 3.3 > > Hi Joe, > > Congrats with your number!! > > I have tried to lab up a scenario with two ospf instances on the same > router, mapping the same interfaces to area 0 in both. I thought i read > somewhere that OSPFv2 doesnt have any way to differentiate this on the same > subnet, as OSPFv3 does with a sort of instance-field. Results show that only > one adjacency will be made: > > R1 <-> R2, where R1 has two instances of OSPF, both marking the link > between R1 and R2, as being in area 0. Only instance 1 will actually show > up, and be adjacent with from R2. Are there any documentation regarding this > behavior? > > Sincerely, > Kim Pedersen > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Joe Astorino <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hey Robert, > > > > In general, yes you CAN connect two discontiguous area 0's in OSPF but you > are not REQUIRED to necessarily. Another option is to have seperate OSPF > processes running, and just use redistribution. If it is a giant pain in > the butt to connect the two area 0's you may just want to run a seperate > process of OSPF all together on one of the routers, then just redistribute > that process. Does that make sense? > > > > Regards, > > Joe Astorino > CCIE #24347 (R&S) > Sr. Support Engineer – IPexpert, Inc. > URL: http://www.IPexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Robert S Wyzykowski > *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2009 12:38 AM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* [OSL | CCIE_RS] Volume 3 Lab8 Section 3.3 > > > In this topology, there are two separate OSPF Domains, with separate Area > 0s, and the proctor guide did not connect them together. I was under the > impression if you have OSPF in different areas of the network, it was a > requirement to make sure it was one big OSPF domain. > > In this lab they are separate. > > Any thoughts? > > *Error! Filename not specified.* > > Robert Wyzykowski > Manager, Global Telecommunications > IMERYS > 30 Mansell Court East - Suite 220 > Roswell, GA, USA > Phone: +1 770 645 3734 > Mobile: +1 404-434 9000 > > > > From: > > jmangawang <[email protected]> > > To: > > [email protected] > > Date: > > 05/14/2009 04:14 PM > > Subject: > > [OSL | CCIE_RS] Two seemingly inconsequential CCIE Lab questions for > Joe > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > Joe, > > First, congratulations on getting your CCIE. I've been a fan of your > blog ever since starting my own journey back in March and found your > experiences match a lot of my own. Onto the questions: > > 1) How big is the desk area? > 2) How big is the monitor and what is the resolution? > > I know these may seem dumb, but during my initial study phase, I've > basically taken up my entire dining room table (seats 8) and use a 22" > widescreen monitor with a really high resolution. I'd hate to get > there only to find out that we have to use an old 14" CRT on an > elementary school desk (I know this is not the case, but I hope you > get the visualization). > > Thanks, > > Jason > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.323 / Virus Database: 270.12.29/2114 - Release Date: 05/14/09 > 06:28:00 > > > > > -- > // Freedom Matters > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.323 / Virus Database: 270.12.29/2114 - Release Date: 05/14/09 > 06:28:00 > > > > > -- > // Freedom Matters > -- // Freedom Matters
