Re: lab instructions vs ospf default route

From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 19:52:52 GMT-3


Thanks Marvin.

I take it that filtering a default route created by an ospf abr because of
the type of stub area it's connected to, is highly unlikely to be needed to
fulfill the requirements presented. And, therefore, I should suspect
there's another preferable solution before doing something like that. Would
you agree?

Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Greenlee" <marvingreenlee@yahoo.com>
To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: lab instructions vs ospf default route

> The 'general lab instructions' will most likely allow
> default/static routes which are created by a routing
> protocol. If you are to configure a stub, total stub,
> or NSSA area, there will be some information in the
> requirement to let you know that.
>
> Marvin Greenlee, CCIE #12237
> marvin@ccbootcamp.com
>
> --- ccie2be <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > If the General Lab instructions prohibit default
> > routes, but within the lab
> > itself, I'm suppose to configure some type of ospf
> > stub area, 3 of the 4 of
> > which generate a default route by default, what
> > should I do?
> >
> > The only type of stub area which doesn't, by
> > default, generate a default route
> > is the NSSA. If that type of stub area isn't the
> > appropriate type of stub
> > area based on the task requirements, does that mean
> > that most llikely I
> > misinterpreted the task requirements or should I
> > filter the default route?
> >
> > And, if I filter the default route, won't I have all
> > sorts of other
> > reachability problems?
> >
> > If someone could elaborate on how I should think
> > about this problem, I'd be
> > very, very appreciative.
> >
> > TIA, Tim
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 11:12:19 GMT-3