I think I might have figured out how to make the statemets dissappear. I noticed that it only dissappears if you set the "ip ospf priority" to zero on the interface participating in the ospf neighbor relationship. Setting the priority to zero means that the router will not participate in the DR/BDR election. There is probably some coorelation here, only I don't know what it is. Anyone have anything to add?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Brown" To: "'Router Man'" ; Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:04 AM Subject: RE: OSPF and The Disappearing Neighbor Statement [7:31656] > 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 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32629&t=31656 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
