[nsp] Setting router ospf passive-interface default

[Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN]

ALL,

THE POINT BEING THAT THE ADJACENCIES MANAGEMENT WILL REMAIN CONSISTENT
REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO...MEANING THEY ARE GONNA GET RESET AND
RE-ESTABLISHED
EACH TIME A LINK CHANGES STATES ... ALL SPORTS..ALL THE TIME...

i cant think of a single vendor who will re-write the (ospf and adjunct
(i)OS)
code to accomodate this lack of forethought/planning on the admin as regards
what/who the
net peers are. 

Can we shift gears and talk about something thats really technical URGENT or
at least
interesting.

this thread is tired.

~piranha


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of M.Palis
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:01 PM
To: John Kristoff
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [nsp] Setting router ospf passive-interface default


Adjacency changes will occur. What we did, we creat a text file with the
command passive-interface default
and also the interfaces that we dont want to go to the passive state as
below

passive-interface default
no passive-interface <interface>

Copy paste the configuration to running OSPF process. We lose the neighbour
for a few seconds because adjacencies where dropped and the re-established.
Before we did the above we made sure that we can telnet to the router from
the point-to-point interfaces in the case we made a mistake on the OSPF
configuration.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Kristoff" <jtk at northwestern.edu>
To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 6:43 PM
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/