From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Wed Aug 08 2007 - 12:51:25 ART
I'd expect that intra-area origination (Type 1 vs. Type 4 for next hop)
would be preferred. So the N1 first, N2 second, E1 third and E2 fourth.
Beyond that, if there's a tie, I would expect that this decision would be
based on the metric of the Type 1 LSA to the next-hop router there. If the
metric to the ASBR in NSSA was better, I'd think it would go that way as you
see. If the metric was better to the next ABR (Type 4 --> Type 1 ABR) for
the E1 route, I'd go that way.
Since you have it labbed up already, play with it, and I'd be interested in
seeing your post!
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of mam
phuquoc
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 4:55 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: NSSA Type 1 and 2 Vs E1 and E2
Hi all,
question, if there is an ABR router with some interfaces in area 0 and other
interfaces in nssa area 5. If there is an external route redistributed in
to area 0 as a type E1, and the same route is redsitributed into nssa area
5, the router acting as the abr will see both in the ospf database, but
which one will it use and put in the routing table, the nssa route, or the
E1 route from area 0?
area0 ----------------------------------------
ABR----------------------------------nssa 5
announcing route 10.0.0.0 -------> <---------------announcing
route 10.0.0.0
It looks like to me the ABR is using the NSSA route and puts it in the
routing table, but why I can't understand. Please share your thoughts.
Thanks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:10 ART