From: Gary Duncanson (gary.duncanson@googlemail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 31 2007 - 18:19:48 ART
From the looks of things..(Im sure Scott will correct me)..that is the whole
point *except* when the E2 route metrics are the same, in which case the cost
to the ASBR for the advertised routes is also checked to see if they are also
the same giving a tie.
In the scenario where the E2 metrics are different the cost to ASBR wouldn't
need to be checked.
With E1 routes the cost to ASBR is always added to the metric.
At least that's how it looks to me so far.
Scott?
----- Original Message -----
From: Herbert Maosa
To: Scott Smith
Cc: Gary Duncanson ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: OSPF external type-2 route load balance
Thrown a little offset here. I thought the whole point of type-2 external
route was that the cost to ASBR was irrelevant ? If type-2 is looking at the
cost to the ASBR, then what is the difference with type-1 ?
On 8/31/07, Scott Smith <hioctane@gmail.com> wrote:
While that is true that type1 metric changes along the path and the
type2 is constant this isn't the point of the show output.
What I've pointed out is there is another metric in play with
externals aside from the metric of the route. The router also
considers the cost to the ASBR when deciding if externals are truly
equal. For two externals to be considered equal everything must be
equal. Both the metric of the route as seen via "sh ip route" and the
metric to the ASBR seen via "sh ip ospf border-routers" must be equal.
--
Scott
CCIE #17040 (R&S)
On 8/31/07, Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com > wrote:
> Thanks for that Scott.
>
> Looks like this demonstrates this rather well, at least how I read it.
>
> From OSPF Design Guide on CCO.
>
> sic 'External routes fall under two categories, external type 1 and
external
> type 2. The difference between the two is in the way the cost (metric)
of
> the route is being calculated. The cost of a type 2 route is always the
> external cost, irrespective of the interior cost to reach that route.'
>
> Rgds
> Gary
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Smith" <hioctane@gmail.com>
> To: "Sadiq Yakasai" < sadiqtanko@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Joseph Brunner" <joe@affirmedsystems.com>; "Herbert Maosa"
> < asawilunda@googlemail.com>; "ISolveSystems"
<support@isolvesystems.com>;
> "Cisco certification" < ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: OSPF external type-2 route load balance
>
>
> > Bingo!
> >
> > A1 learns 100.100.100.0 from both 10.43.1.61 & 10.43.1.73.
> >
> > Before - BW 1536 to both ASBRs
> >
> > A1(config-router)#do sh ip route ospf
> > 100.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> > O E2 100.100.100.0 [110/20] via 10.43.1.61, 00:00:36, Serial1/0.1
> > [110/20] via 10.43.1.73, 00:00:36,
> > Serial1/0.2
> >
> >
> > After - Dropped BW to 512 on s1/0.1
> >
> > A1(config-subif)#do sh ip route ospf
> > 100.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> > O E2 100.100.100.0 [110/20] via 10.43.1.73, 00:00:06, Serial1/0.2
> >
> >
> > Then changed BW back to 1536 on s1/0.1 (now both are equal again)
> >
> > A1(config-subif)#do sh ip route ospf
> > 100.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> > O E2 100.100.100.0 [110/20] via 10.43.1.73, 00:00:02, Serial1/0.2
> > [110/20] via 10.43.1.61, 00:00:02,
> > Serial1/0.1
> >
> > The metric is a constant 20, however, for the externals OSPF also uses
> > the cost to the ASBR.
> >
> > --
> > Scott
> > CCIE #17040 (R&S)
> >
> >
> > On 8/31/07, Sadiq Yakasai < sadiqtanko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Can you show the Type 4 LSA database as well?
> >>
> >> I think the cost to the ASBR has a role to play in selecting 2 Type
5
> >> LSA's reporting the same prefix.
> >>
> >> I am not quite sure about this though.
> >>
> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:14 ART