We redistribute BGP into OSPF. That /21 is from an aggregate block in the BGP table. We don't use any "null0" routes. What's interesting is that every other router in the same area as the HiperArc is on the same IP subnet (208.186.96.0/24) and it's not having adjacency problems with any of those. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antonio Querubin" <tony@lava.net> To: <usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [USR-TC] OSPF Adjaceny Problems
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Steve Coleman wrote:
All the routers have a /24 subnet. (208.186.96.0/24) However, doing a list ip route on the arc shows the following relevant routing entries
208.186.96.0/21 LOCAL 208.186.96.15 1 eth:1 208.186.96.11/H LOCAL 208.186.96.11 1 eth:1
I've run into the problem where OSPF won't negotiate because the subnet masks don't match. That's easy to troubleshoot because the debug on the Cisco will specifically say the netmasks don't match. I'm not having that problem this time.
208.186.96.0/21 is the aggregate address for that block. It's being redistributed into OSPF from BGP.
Would this be a null route for locking down the announcement of the aggregate perhaps? From some earlier notes from Mike Andrews (search the list archives for 'OSPF adjacency') this might be related to 3COM bug ID MR12019 which you may have already found in the archives.
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc