Re: Problem with OSPF route

Re: Problem with OSPF route
NewsGroups | Search | Tools
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 alt.certification.cisco  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: Problem with OSPF route pk 02-10-2008
Posted by pk on February 10, 2008, 11:15 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Jason wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a 10 Meg ethernet port on 'router 1' configured with IP address
> 192.168.1.100, it also has a secondary IP address of 192.168.7.1
> configured. I have declared both IP addresses with the 'wildcard' mask
> 0.0.0.0 in the OSPF network configuration (along with a serial interface
> 192.168.2.2 on that router). However, on my other 2 routrers I'm seeing
> the route to 192.168.7.1 but NOT to the 192.168.1.100 'primary' address?

Did you try to debug the adjacency process? What does "sh ip ospf neigh"
show?


Pure Networks
Posted by Jason on February 10, 2008, 12:02 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> Jason wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a 10 Meg ethernet port on 'router 1' configured with IP address
>> 192.168.1.100, it also has a secondary IP address of 192.168.7.1
>> configured. I have declared both IP addresses with the 'wildcard' mask
>> 0.0.0.0 in the OSPF network configuration (along with a serial interface
>> 192.168.2.2 on that router). However, on my other 2 routrers I'm seeing
>> the route to 192.168.7.1 but NOT to the 192.168.1.100 'primary' address?
>
> Did you try to debug the adjacency process? What does "sh ip ospf neigh"
> show?
>

Yeah the two routers are fully adjacent, here is the info:

On GROUCHO:

GROUCHO#show ip ospf neighbor

Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address Interface
192.168.3.1 1 FULL/ - 00:00:35 192.168.2.1 Serial0/0
GROUCHO#


On CHICO

CHICO#show ip ospf neighbor

Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address Interface
192.168.4.2 1 FULL/ - 00:00:38 192.168.2.2 Serial0
192.168.3.2 1 FULL/ - 00:00:34 192.168.3.2 Serial1
CHICO#

Posted by pk on February 10, 2008, 12:37 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Jason wrote:

>> Did you try to debug the adjacency process? What does "sh ip ospf neigh"
>> show?
>>
>
> Yeah the two routers are fully adjacent, here is the info:
>
> On GROUCHO:
>
> GROUCHO#show ip ospf neighbor
>
> Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address
> Interface
> 192.168.3.1 1 FULL/ - 00:00:35 192.168.2.1
> Serial0/0 GROUCHO#
>
>
> On CHICO
>
> CHICO#show ip ospf neighbor
>
> Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address
> Interface
> 192.168.4.2 1 FULL/ - 00:00:38 192.168.2.2 Serial0
> 192.168.3.2 1 FULL/ - 00:00:34 192.168.3.2 Serial1
> CHICO#

Post full config for GROUCHO and CHICO (at least "interface" and "router
ospf" config). Where does the 192.168.4.2 RID for GROUCHO come from?


Posted by pk on February 10, 2008, 1:17 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Jason wrote:

>> Post full config for GROUCHO and CHICO (at least "interface" and
>> "router ospf" config). Where does the 192.168.4.2 RID for GROUCHO come
>> from?
>
> Here are the 2 running configs, 192.168.4.2 is the ip address of another
> ethernet port on GROUCHO which is 'DOWN' at the moment. I have been
> using it to get my Internet connection working through my Cisco kit by
> plugging my 3Com modem into it. OSPF just chose this IP address to use
> as the ID for GROUCHO.

Your configs are a bit messy :-)

First thing I'd do, is to remove eigrp and rip. I can't imagine why you
would want or need to run more than one routing protocol on the same links.
It's considered bad practice. Also remove all eigrp-related stuff, like
authentication, from interface configuration. EIGRP has a lower
administrative distance than OSPF, and most likely adversely interferes
with it.

Second, remove access-groups (in and out) from CHICO's serial0, since they
are not defined anywhere.

Third, you have asymmetric bandwidth/cost configurations for GROUCHO's s0/0
and CHICO's s0. On GROUCHO, you declare an OSPF cost of 300, while on CHICO
the cost is left at its default value (which is 10^8/bandwidth, or
10^8/10^6, or 100). Having different costs for a link at the opposite sides
is not recommended, since it can cause asymmetric routing. Either manually
adjust the costs, or the bandwidths, or remove both altogether and go with
the default values.

After all the above, reload the routers and see whether things get better.


Posted by Jason on February 10, 2008, 1:09 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> Jason wrote:
>
>>> Post full config for GROUCHO and CHICO (at least "interface" and
>>> "router ospf" config). Where does the 192.168.4.2 RID for GROUCHO
>>> come from?
>>
>> Here are the 2 running configs, 192.168.4.2 is the ip address of
>> another ethernet port on GROUCHO which is 'DOWN' at the moment. I
>> have been using it to get my Internet connection working through my
>> Cisco kit by plugging my 3Com modem into it. OSPF just chose this IP
>> address to use as the ID for GROUCHO.
>
> Your configs are a bit messy :-)
>
> First thing I'd do, is to remove eigrp and rip. I can't imagine why
> you would want or need to run more than one routing protocol on the
> same links. It's considered bad practice. Also remove all
> eigrp-related stuff, like authentication, from interface
> configuration. EIGRP has a lower administrative distance than OSPF,
> and most likely adversely interferes with it.
>
> Second, remove access-groups (in and out) from CHICO's serial0, since
> they are not defined anywhere.
>
> Third, you have asymmetric bandwidth/cost configurations for GROUCHO's
> s0/0 and CHICO's s0. On GROUCHO, you declare an OSPF cost of 300,
> while on CHICO the cost is left at its default value (which is
> 10^8/bandwidth, or 10^8/10^6, or 100). Having different costs for a
> link at the opposite sides is not recommended, since it can cause
> asymmetric routing. Either manually adjust the costs, or the
> bandwidths, or remove both altogether and go with the default values.
>
> After all the above, reload the routers and see whether things get
> better.
>
>

Thanks for the advice, I'll try your suggestions. The configs are a bit
messy for two reasons:

1) I didn't erase the configs from the previos user
2) I've been experimenting with many different settings & trying different
configs to try to understand all the concepts

I've nearly finished both ICND1 & ICND2 books so most likely I'll erase
everything and start again when I've finished the second book & covered all
the topics.

Cheers, Jase.

Similar ThreadsPosted
OSPF Route Summarization May 4, 2005, 10:42 am
static default route, different metric problem December 12, 2006, 9:06 am
BGP + Route map + Next Hop January 17, 2007, 3:03 am
route poisoning May 21, 2005, 2:33 pm
Can't Modify Outside Route ? September 29, 2005, 8:56 pm
EIGRP route summarization April 26, 2005, 10:23 am
EIGRP Route Summarization January 11, 2006, 11:58 pm
Some question before I go down the CCNA route June 21, 2006, 6:47 pm
CCIP Study route. August 19, 2006, 4:53 am
Route summary question September 7, 2006, 4:09 pm

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map