John, I've been following your thread and think I found a possible answer to your question on why the neighbor statement gets ignored when entered on spoke routers!
In the OSPF Desig Guide "Section 1" under "Adjacencies on Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) Networks" the next to last statement in the paragraph gives us a clue. "The neighbor command applies to routers with a potential of being DRs or BDRs (interface priority not equal to 0)." So to test that theory, I changed the priority on one of my spokes to 1 from 0 and viola, it takes the neighbor statement just fine. Prior to changing the interface priority I could enter the neighbor statement under the OSPF process, but it didn't show up in the config. Spoke Router: interface Serial0 ip address 192.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 no ip directed-broadcast encapsulation frame-relay IETF logging event subif-link-status logging event dlci-status-change frame-relay map ip 192.1.1.2 100 broadcast frame-relay map ip 192.1.1.3 100 broadcast frame-relay lmi-type ansi ! router ospf 64 network 192.1.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 neighbor 192.1.1.2 Hub Router: interface Serial0 ip address 192.1.1.2 255.255.255.0 encapsulation frame-relay IETF frame-relay map ip 192.1.1.1 100 broadcast frame-relay map ip 192.1.1.3 200 broadcast frame-relay lmi-type ansi ! router ospf 64 log-adjacency-changes network 2.2.2.2 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 192.1.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 neighbor 192.1.1.3 neighbor 192.1.1.1 priority 1 I thought you only need the neighbor statement on one side of the > connection? > > Once a router accepts the hello, adjacencies are formed with information > from the hello via unicast communication from that point forward. > > Sort of like if I shout over a hill, "Hey Routerman are you there, this > is > Jim." Then you would respond back to me by name. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Router Man [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OSPF and The Disappearing Neighbor Statement [7:31656] > > > I was able to reproduce your exact scenario. I had a hub with two > spokes > and the neighbor statements only appeared on the hub. This is very > interesting and I'm not sure what the reason behind it is. I am glad > that > this was brought up, because I would love to get to the bottom of this > situation. I'll keep you posted ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > The network statement definitely was there, but the neighbor > > statements would only appear on the hub router. Interestingly, I just > > > saw a sample configuration similar to this on CCO and they only had > > the neighbor statement on one router, not both. I think as long as > > one router has a neighbor statement configured, the adjacency will > > form assuming all other things being equal (network type, etc.) > > > > The adjacencies formed but I had to cycle the interfaces to get things > > started. Even if the neighbor statement is only required on one > side, > > I still don't understand why the router wouldn't let me add it. The > > adjacencies would eventually form, however, and routing occurred > > exactly as I expected it. > > > > I did notice a minor issue with the neighbor statements on the hub. I > > > had three of them, and one of them inserted 'priority 1' at the end, > > yet the other two remained as I entered them. > > > > >>> "Router Man" 1/11/02 3:08:03 PM >>> > > The only time that the "neighbor" statement will not show up in the > > running-config, is if you do not have a "network" statement under the > > "router ospf" process. I am doubting that the neighbors formed an > > adjacency without the neigbor or network statements showing up under > > the ospf config. > > If the adjacency was actually formed, then it must be a bug. > > > > Another thing that I have noticed is than when trying to use the > > neighbor statement to set the priority, "neighbor 1.1.1.1 priority > > 255" the priority > > will change to something other than what I set it too. It took me a > > while > > to figure this one out. The problem is that I have to have matching > > "ip > > ospf priority 255" statements under the interfaces running ospf . > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > It was hot, too hot. Our detective had been working feverishly to > > > configure OSPF over NBMA without the use of ip ospf network > > statements. > > > He knew that to do this he must explicitly add neighbor statements > > or > > > adjacencies would not form. > > > > > > He logs into the hub router and types in his three neighbor > > statements. > > > All seems well. It's still too hot, but it's a dry heat. > > > > > > He now logs into one of the spoke routers and types in his neighbor > > > statement. He pauses momentarily and then checks the OSPF > > adjacencies. > > > Something seems to be wrong, he thinks to himself. This ought to be > > > > working, but it isn't. Why not? He looks through the running > > > config > > to > > > look for any errors and notices the the neighbor statement that he > > just > > > entered is missing! > > > > > > He slowly and deliberately types it in again making sure there are > > no > > > mistakes but yet it still does not show up in the running > > configuration. > > > Is this an IOS issue? Operator error? Some rift in the space-time > > > > continuum? > > > > > > He jumps to another spoke router running a different IOS and tries > > the > > > same thing with the same result. He is frantic now, beads of sweat > > > pouring down his face. What if this were the real CCIE lab exam? > > Could > > > this be a fatal stumbling block? > > > > > > He finally notices that adjacencies do eventually form after > > clearing > > > the relevant interfaces. This must be because the hub router > > accepted > > > the neighbor statements. But what if it hadn't, he ponders. He > > thinks > > > forward into the future when--a day after taking the lab exam--he > > > receives the dreaded email that says, "We're sorry, it is apparent > > that > > > you have no clue." > > > > > > Back to the real world.... > > > > > > What was the cause of the missing neighbor statements? Have any of > > you > > > run into this before? I've never bothered to explicitly use > > neighbor > > > statements as I'm in the habit of using the ip ospf network command > > to > > > make them unnecessary. > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31793&t=31656 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
