Hi,
Using the interface specific address, or network statement is a large
matter for debate. Last I heard Cisco recommends the network rather than
the interface for the network statement.. I have seen this actually make
networks break, especially if the network has been designed in a network
fashion.... Both designs work equally well, and I don't feel that you
have any finer grain of control using one method or another... The
biggest point is to be consistent with your network statements. What does
the database show (sh ip ospf data)? Was the serial interface ever in
area 3?
What I would suggest is to take the OSPF statement out and re-enter it...
I have had some strange problems with OSPF and this usually seems to take
care of it.
Everett
Tony Tauber wrote:
> > When I do a 'sh ip ospf interface' it looks like the second serial1
> > interface is showing up in area 3. Is this because I have a netmask
> > problem?
>
> Doesn't appear like there should be, however, it's often not
> a bad idea to use specific masks in your network statements.
>
> Thus, instead of:
>
> network 208.35.23.12 0.0.0.3 area 0
>
> use:
>
> network 208.35.23.13 0.0.0.0 area 0
>
> which matches the IP address on the interface exactly.
>
> This approach gives better granularity of control and
> avoids masking errors as well as the time spent calulating
> the network and mask values.
>
> You might try re-doing the network statements (or even
> removing and re-adding the same one on the affected router).
> That will cause a re-initialization which may break it out
> of its funk.
>
> Tony
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"Failure is not an option"
Gene Cranz, Apollo 13 mission
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Everett Dowd edowd@clark.net
CCIE #2409 http://www.clark.net/pub/edowd
Just bein' virtual =8^) Welcome to the 'net
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:08 EDT