I remain confused on what problem is being solved. There needs to be a default route for anything to get out of the area. If the goal is to block all other non-intra-area routes, why not just make the area totally stubby?
>would writing an access list to block 224.0.0.5 and .6 do the trick? > >-----Original Message----- >From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:13 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Blocking OSPF LSA [7:39191] > > >You could use 'passive-interface' in the ospf config or you could choose >not to include a network statement that includes that interface. If you >need to advertise that prefix, a possibility might be to redistribute >connected. > >Of course, it all depends on what you're really trying to accomplish. > >HTH, >John > >>>> "Larry Whitfill" 3/22/02 11:28:35 AM >>> >I know how to reduce the number of LSA's being injected into an area by >an >ABR by using the stub, no-summary command. However, area 3 LSA's are >still >sent into the area (default route LSA). I know I cab stop them with >"database filter," but does anyone know of another way to block all >LSA's? > >Thanks, >Larry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39222&t=39191 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
