01-10-2009, 10:24 PM
What if RTA and neighbor 192.168.45.1 were already communicating when 192.168.45.2 was powered on and started sending out hellos? Check out the Study Guide (3d edition) on page 173, especially the NOTE in gray.
I think you're reading to much into the question. I believe they just want to see if you have enough sense to look at the output and be able to tell that if one router is the DR and the the other is a DROTHER, then the third router has to be the BDR.
I've been accused of the same thing on many occasions. ;D
Hope this helps.
I think you're reading to much into the question. I believe they just want to see if you have enough sense to look at the output and be able to tell that if one router is the DR and the the other is a DROTHER, then the third router has to be the BDR.
I've been accused of the same thing on many occasions. ;D
Hope this helps.
(12-24-2008, 10:03 AM)JFrost link Wrote:I have a couple of problems with this question.
Lets look at the answers and the problems with each:
*RTA and neighbor 192.168.45.2 are exchanging LSA's
192.168.4.2 is in 2-WAY state with RTA meaning that they are not going to
*RTA is the BDR
The DR and BDR both must establish a Full adjacency with all routers on the segment. If RTA was the BDR, it should have established a Full adjacency with the DROTHER 192.168.45.2.
*RTA is directly connected to the interface 192.168.45.1
You can see clearly from the diagram that the routers are directly connected on the 10.0.0.0 network. It is likely that the 192.168.45.0 addresses are loopback addresses that make establish the RID. That is unless the RID was set explicitly. BTW Neighbor ID = RID of other Router.
*Neighbor 192.168.45.1 has changed its OSPF priority number
This is also wrong because the router has a priority of 1 which is the default.
Please see the links below and let me know if I am wrong.
http://www.ciscosystems.com/en/US/tech/t....shtml#t21
http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/paws/13683/11.pdf