On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Tony Sarendal <t...@polarcap.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Henning Brauer <lists-open...@bsws.de>wrote: > >> * Tony Sarendal <t...@polarcap.org> [2010-10-23 19:03]: >> > How does OpenBSD handle the same prefix being in both bgpd and ospfd ? >> >> in general? OSPF routes have priority over BGP routes. that's >> implemented kernel routing table side and the daemons setting the >> priority field to their respective priorities when inserting their >> routes. >> >> > Does this mean that bgpd and ospfd can happily co-exist on the same box ? > > As an example: > Prefix A shows up in BGP, later it shows up in OSPF, > even later it is withdrawn from OSPF. Will the prefix in BGP now be in the > fib ? > > OSPF being the winner is not optimal in my case, but being predictable > is good enough. > > > I connect devices to the core network using two core routers and >> > redistributing >> > BGP->OSPF would be happening on both of them. >> >> that I dunno OTOH >> >> > Being able to redist BGP->OSPF and not connecting ospfd to the fib would > do what I want. Unfortunately the manpage for ospfd.conf doesn't seem to > support > this setup. > > fib-update (yes|no) > If set to no, do not update the Forwarding Information Base, > a.k.a. the kernel routing table. The default is yes. Setting > fib-update to no will implicitly set the stub router option to > ensure that no traffic tries to transit via this router. > > I mean this would do what I want if bgpd and ospfd can't co-exist. Regards Tony
