[nsp] Setting router ospf passive-interface default

[Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN]

Steinar,

you are correct in the assessment of the benefits of such a change
from technical viewpoint,,,no argument there.

not speaking for anyone but myself but i think a general
consensus as regards the impractical side is the logistics of 
implementing the code changes and any anomalies that may arise
across vendors and enterprise would be monstrous.

the resources required to accomplish this would not be a good
business decision for the sake of the convenience of system and
network admins. the cost to upgrade software, schedulng changes,
manpower allocation, phased comm-out in business units.

again....ditto... on impractical...

btw, i'm a network engineer not a bean counter, so its really
not a techie bashing, its just the reality of the business 
environments we work in.

its all about the benjamins to the suits.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of sthaug at nethelp.no
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:25 AM
To: Dan.Wilson at ge.com
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [nsp] Setting router ospf passive-interface default


> 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/
_______________________________________________
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/