From: Peter van Oene (pvo@usermail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 11:12:07 GMT-3
Sounds ok, but which LSA is used is the more interesting question.
At 04:09 PM 10/24/2002 +0200, Jaroslaw Zak wrote:
>As far as I remember when you define area as "stub" and "stub no-summary"
>in both cases you get 0.0.0.0 injected in.
>While when you create "nssa" and "nssa no-summary", only in last case you
>get your default in. Therefore you would need
>"default-information-originate" option for "nssa" type area, if you wish
>to have 0.0.0.0 route propagated within.
>
>I wonder if I remember it right... :)
>
>Regards
>Jarek
>
>
>
>
>>From: Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
>>Reply-To: Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
>>To: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>Subject: Re: nssa no-summary question
>>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:02:52 -0400
>>
>>At 05:26 PM 10/23/2002 -0500, Wright, Jeremy wrote:
>>>i have area 100 setup as a "nssa no-summary" between r1 and r2. on the other
>>>side of r1 is area 0. r1 dumps a default route down to r2 because of the
>>>no-summary argument. would there be any reason to use
>>>default-information-originate in this scenario? thanks
>>
>>Might be some need to control which of type 3 or 7 LSA's are used for the
>>summary route. NSSA no-summary might send a 7 with def originate sending
>>a 3, but I'm rusty here and would need to check. 3's are better than 7's
>>and thus you might be sending a default that is not preferred when
>>actually wanted it to be. Juniper lets you control this and I expect
>>Cisco might as well, but I haven't played with it recently.
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN.
>http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:55 GMT-3