[nsp] Setting router ospf passive-interface default

[Wilson, Dan]

Would you, therefore, increase the amount of code in Cisco's implementation
of OSPF so that when you make a global change to OSPF, it first checks to
see if implementations of your change are currently configured?  Sounds like
a code nightmare, and I'm not sure I want it to attempt that for me.  Maybe
as a series of questions asked upon implementation of the command, i.e.
Passive installed on Serial 1/0.104, is this what you want to do?

Not too practical, eh?

-----Original Message-----
From: sthaug at nethelp.no [mailto:sthaug at nethelp.no] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:14 AM
To: Dan.Wilson at ge.com
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [nsp] Setting router ospf passive-interface default

> Well, seriously.   You change whether OSPF talks on all interfaces, and
> *don't* think it should run the spf algorithm?  You've made a global
change
> to OSPF, and it *should* re run its whole table!

If the desired change is: all the interfaces that were passive before the 
change should be passive afterwards, and similarly for the all the active
interfaces - then no interface changes state with respect to OSPF. Why
should it have to bounce adjacencies?

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no


> 
> The method you use to change the config isn't going to matter, either.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Kristoff [mailto:jtk at northwestern.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:44 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [nsp] Setting router ospf passive-interface default
> 
> Perhaps I've missed something, but is there a way to implement on a
> router already running OSPF, where routing interfaces are not going to
> be change the following:
> 
>   router ospf [process-id]
>    passive-interface default
> 
> Without having adjacency changes occur?  In my limited testing, either
> with a quick copy and paste or tftp upload to the running config, it
> seems that either will result in OSPF dropping all interfaces causing
> neighbor adjacencies to have to be reestablished.  Since in my example,
> the routing interfaces will have 'no passive-interface', routing really
> doesn't change so it would be nice if reconvergence didn't have to occur
> either.
> 
> John
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/