On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:09:57AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > --On 5 July 2011 11:16:21 +0200 Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> > wrote: > >> No, it is completely pointless. This is one thing i would like to fix >> soon. If you have a static list of IP/prefixes, one workaround is to >> activate OSPF just on non-stub interfaces/prefixes and add stub >> prefixes using 'stubnet' option. > > I have a similar deployment requirement (lots and lots of interfaces) > which don't need ospf running on them, two default routes learnt, > routes for the interfaces advertised. > > As all my routes are directly connected, my plan was simply to > redistribute into OSPF.
You mean export them to OSPF as external routes? Yes, that is probably the best solution, having too many stub networks have problems (large LSAs) and limits (about several thousands stub networks by one router). > However, the issue here is that some of the > routes are interface routes (i.e. routed to the interface rather > than the interface being numbered). For reasons I don't fully > understand, a numbered interface can form part of an OSPF > stubby area, but an interface route can't (wrong LSA type). You mean that you cannot export external LSAs to stub areas? Yes, that is true. > In the absence of NSSA, is changing the LSA type of redistributed > connected and interface routes an option? (this also has the > advantage I don't need to reconfigure bird when adding/removing > routes). I do not understand how you want to change the LSA type. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
