From: Ryan B (rbenigno@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:46:59 GMT-3
Well, no you're not right... You should never have to configure OSPF
multicasts as uninteresting across a DDR interface (Actually, I've heard of
some problems with virtual-links, but haven't seen it). This sounds like
you are doing mutual redistribution of OSPF & your distance vector protocol
without the proper route-map's in place. Watch your OSPF database for
extraneous External entries and filter them out when you redistribute your
distance vector protocol into OSPF, and visa-versa.
If you have problems still, send a copy of the configs from all routers
involved, the routes on each router, the OSPF database, and the distance
vector database.
-Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: Earl Aboytes <earl@linkline.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 1:54 AM
Subject: ISDN and NSSA
> I thought that I would share something that I recently discovered. I hope
this isn't obvious to the rest of you.
>
> If you are injecting a distance vector routing protocol into OSPF and ISDN
is using OSPF as its routing protocol, a multicast with address 224.0.0.5
(all spf routers) will keep your circuit up forever. Even with the ip ospf
demand-circuit command this still occurs. OSPF sees these external routes
and floods them as Type 7 LSA's.
>
> My first thoughts were to configure the offending areas as NSSAs. Area 1
is one of the areas but has a virtual link running through it. Is this a
concern? The other area is area 0 which cannot be configured as a NSSA. I
was left with no choice but to configure 224.0.0.5 as uninteresting traffic.
Am I right?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Earl Aboytes
> Senior Technical Consultant
> GTE-Managed Solutions
> 800-483-5325 x8817
> earl.aboytes@telops.gte.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:04 GMT-3