From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu May 17 2007 - 20:08:12 ART
I had a similar scenario I was working out recently
and it seemed the "no redistribution" option was the
correct choice based on the debug output from my
findings.
Thanks Brian!
--- Ronnie Angello <ronnie.angello@gmail.com> wrote:
> That would prevent inter-area routes from entering
> the area as well.
>
> On 5/17/07, Sean.Zimmerman@clubcorp.com
> <Sean.Zimmerman@clubcorp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't take it any more.
> > Aren't we talking about a totally stubby NSSA
> here? Or am I just way off
> > base?
> >
> >
> > *"Ronnie Angello" <ronnie.angello@gmail.com>*
> > Sent by: nobody@groupstudy.com
> >
> > 05/17/2007 09:28 AM Please respond to
> > "Ronnie Angello" <ronnie.angello@gmail.com>
> >
> > To
> > "Darby Weaver" <darbyweaver@yahoo.com> cc
> > "Brian Dennis" <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>,
> iyux2000@gmail.com,
> > ccielab@groupstudy.com Subject
> > Re: OSPF NSSA AREA question interpretation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not to speak for Brian here, but apparently the
> task specifically referred
> > to external routes not being flooded (or entering)
> into the NSSA. The
> > first
> > thing that comes to my mind is 'area nssa
> no-redistribution.' I have not
> > seen the actual scenario so I may be missing a
> piece of it and could be
> > wrong.
> >
> > On 5/17/07, Darby Weaver <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > Are you saying that the ip ospf flood reduction
> knob
> > > does solve this problem or not? I'm thinking it
> does,
> > > but please correct me if I mistake its usage.
> > >
> > > It sounded like you said it doesn't really meet
> the
> > > requirements, then you in your answer (that
> does???)
> > > meet the requirements the only word difference
> is "can
> > > not flood..." and "should not be sent..."
> > >
> > > I would think the command fits. Especially since
> it is
> > > probably a translation from another language and
> may
> > > not be exactly 100% explicit.
> > >
> > > Let me know if I'm misunderstanding something
> here.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Darby
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Brian Dennis
> <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The OSPF flood reduction feature doesn't
> really meet
> > > > the requirements. The
> > > > question could be worded: "external routes
> from the
> > > > ASBR should not be sent
> > > > into this particular area"
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Brian Dennis, CCIE4 #2210
> (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP)
> > > > bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
> > > >
> > > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> <http://www.internetworkexpert.com/>
> > > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> > > > Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and
> Canada)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/15/07 5:37 PM, "iyux2000@gmail.com"
> > > > <iyux2000@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, group
> > > > > Here is the scenario, i configured an
> OSPF
> > > > area with NSSA feature enabled,
> > > > > but the requirement says "external routes
> from
> > > > ASBR can not flood in this
> > > > > particular area", what does that mean?
> what's your
> > > > response? My answer is to
> > > > > configure "ip ospf flood-reduction" in this
> area?
> > > > Is that correct?
> > > > > Thank you for your reply.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 06:55:21 ART