> I know, I know... from time to time, someone asks here for help on OSPF.
> Nevertheless, I don't think you can just point me to the FAQ and dismiss me
> easily...
> What is different here is:
>
> 1- E1 PRI, which means I can't just start recycle email about US setups;
This is completely unimportant to configuring OSPF.
> 2- mixed Livingston - Cisco equipment
>
> OK, so here is my network. Let's fake out the addresses... not that it would
> make any difference...
>
> 10.10.0.0/22 is assigned to my ISP.
> 10.10.0.0/25 is the backbone subnet; on this subnet I have just 2 Cisco
> routers, 3 PM3, 1 OR and a Linux box running gated.
> 10.10.1.0/24 is reserved for "assigned dialup addresses" for my customers.
The only address range that is important is the network that the devices
that are talking OSPF to each other over. I think this is the
10.10.0.0/25 network in your example.
add ospf area 0
set ospf area 0 range 10.10.0.0/25
And this is the only range entry you need.
> I am currently running everything with OSPF, and it works, but I don't feel
> it's being done in the best (read, most efficient) way. The reason why I say
> so is that I initially set it up this way:
>
> pm3-1: assigned 10.10.1.1 pool size 60
> pm3-2: assigned 10.10.1.65 pool size 60
> pm3-3: assigned 10.10.1.193 pool size 60
>
> forget about the 10.10.1.128/26 for now...
>
> The problem with this setup is that it generates very few aggregates!!! What
> I'd like to have is:
>
> pm3-1: assigned 10.10.1.0 pool size 64
> pm3-2: assigned 10.10.1.64 pool size 64
> pm3-3: assigned 10.10.1.192 pool size 64
>
> But I'm having a few problems... Before going in too many details with my
> problems, is there anything eveidently wrong in this? With this setup, is it
> ok to use the .0 address? Is it ok to use the .255 address?
I would not use the .0 and .255 addresses even though there is no
reason technically why they won't work, I can guarantee that you will
have problems. In particular Microsoft products seem to be terribly
broken and blab to the .255 address over their dialup connections and
even over their ethernets when that is not the broadcast address. If
you want minimum announcements you need to do like you say above but
limit yourself to only the .64 and .128 subnets. Carve up the other
portions for commercial networks. But there is nothing at all wrong with
the PM's spitting out a /27, /28, /29, and /30 for each assigned space.
It doesn't take a lot of memory to store these and it only updates these
very infrequently so it doesn't waste a lot of bandwidth either.
> A couple of other issues I feel might be related... Every router in the area
> is setup with a network range of 10.10.0.0/22... Is this ok, or would it be
> better to only configure every router and NAT to only include the addresses
> it sees directly? I mean:
You only want a range on the Livingstons for those interfaces that are
talking OSPF. For the ciscos you need a range for every interface but you
need to specify that the interface is passive if you are not talking OSPF
to any device on it. You certainly don't need a range for address space
that is not connected to that device. It will learn about it from those
devices it is speaking OSPF with.
> pm3-1: 10.10.0.0/25 and 10.10.1.0/26
> pm3-2: 10.10.0.0/25 and 10.10.1.64/26
> pm3-3: 10.10.0.0/25 and 10.10.1.192/26
>
> And more: I configured the cisco router connected to the backbone to inject
> a default route in the OSPF area (it is an external area, 0.0.0.0). The
> second cisco sees it and accepts it, while the PM3s don't seem to like it.
> Why? To make this clear: my PM3s are now running with the default gateway
> configured; I changed it to 0.0.0.0, then tried both reset ospf and
> rebooting everything, but nothing happened.
This is the piece I don't know how to get working. I have been unable to
get my PM's to learn the gateway address from OSPF and it works properly
on the ciscos.
Doug Ingraham You can judge the quality of your life by how often
Rapid City, SD you notice the enjoyment of the little things.
USA
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>