From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 28 2007 - 23:37:44 ART
Because the orginal scenario had another routing
protocol adjoining the NSSA and needed to transit it
in order to meet other given tasks and complete
reachability within the pod in question.
So a totally stubby area was not an option.
--- M S <michaelgstout@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 06:55:22 ART