[nsp] Setting router ospf passive-interface default

[sthaug at nethelp.no]

> 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?

Yes.

> 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?

I don't see why it's so impractical. In fact I would prefer this kind
of behavior for all configuration changes where the *textual* change
means that the *actual* configuration for the interface (or whatever)
in question remains unchanged.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no

> 
> -----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/