From: David Ham (ccieau@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jun 29 2002 - 12:18:40 GMT-3
Frank,
Could you pls bit more detail. I used nssa with summary-address
not-advertise, it works great. But not sure about 2 ospf processes.
Regards,
David Ham
>From: "Frank Jimenez" <franjime@cisco.com>
>Reply-To: "Frank Jimenez" <franjime@cisco.com>
>To: "'Peter Whittle'" <peter@whittle-systems.demon.co.uk>, "'CCIELab
> Studygroup'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: OSPF route filtering teaser
>Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:30:07 -0500
>
>Are we allowed to have two different OSPF processes running? If so, we
>can run two different OSPF processes and redistribute between the R2/R3
>process and the R3/R4 process.
>
>Frank Jimenez, CCIE #5738
>franjime@cisco.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>Peter Whittle
>Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 3:11 PM
>To: CCIELab Studygroup
>Subject: OSPF route filtering teaser
>
>
>Selectively blocking OSPF routes between areas
>----------------------------------------------
>
>I would like to pose a simple scenario to the group.
>
>There are 4 routers R1 .. R4
>
>R1 is injecting routes into RIPv2 say 10.1.0.0/16
>
>R2 is running RIPv2 on e0, it is also connected by e1 to OSPF Area 1 and
>must inject the routes learnt from RIP into AREA 1. There are other
>routers also connected to the ethernet segment in Area 1 again running
>OSPF. The routes injected by R2 into area 1 must be visible to these
>routers via OSPF.
>
>R3 has 2 ethernet interfaces e0 in OSPF Area 0, and e1 in OSPF Area 1.
>It must see the RIP routes injected into OSPF by R2 (ie 10.1.0.0/16).
>
>R4 in connected to the ethernet in Area 0 and is also running OSPF and
>is outside of your control.
>
>STOP the RIP routes that were injected by R2 from being seen in Area 0.
>(i.e. block the 10.1.0.0/16 route)
>
>You may only program routers R2, & R3 to achieve this.
>
>
>Any thoughts, ideas, solutions?
>
>
>I have one solution in mind but it is not very elegant. I will share
>this next week when you have had time to think about the problem.
>
>
>------------
>
>A distribute-list applied to R3, an ABR, will of course not work. (When
>the 10.1 route reaches R3 it is in an LSA. If we apply the distribute-
>list x in, it will only block the route going into R3's routing table,
>it will not prevent the LSA from being sent on to R4. We are not
>permitted to change the other routers in Area 0 so we can not use the
>conventional approach of applying the distribute-list x in to each of
>the routers in Area 0.
>
>If we apply a distribute-list x out to the ABR it will again have no
>impact on the LSA advertising the 10.1 route into Area 0.)
>
>==========================
>
>May enlightenment be yours.
>
>Peter
>
>--
>Peter Whittle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:43 GMT-3