From: M S (michaelgstout@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon May 28 2007 - 22:20:57 ART
i have the same confussion. Why NSSA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean.Zimmerman@clubcorp.com
Reply-To: Sean.Zimmerman@clubcorp.com
To: "Ronnie Angello" <ronnie.angello@gmail.com>
CC: "Brian Dennis" <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>,
ccielab@groupstudy.com, "Darby Weaver" <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>,
iyux2000@gmail.com, nobody@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: OSPF NSSA AREA question interpretation
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:01:03 -0500
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
> > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
_______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
--
Ronald Angello
CCIE #17846
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscription information may be found at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscription information may be found at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? Youll love Windows Live
Hotmail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 06:55:22 ART