--On 5 July 2011 14:48:04 +0100 Matthew Walster wrote:
On 5 July 2011 14:30, Alex Bligh wrote:
OK, what I meant was this. Redistribution into an NSSA creates
(from memory) type 7 LSAs. I can't do that (or indeed any
redistribution) into a stub area, as I'm only permitted
LSA types 1, 2, 3 a
On 5 July 2011 14:30, Alex Bligh wrote:
> OK, what I meant was this. Redistribution into an NSSA creates
> (from memory) type 7 LSAs. I can't do that (or indeed any
> redistribution) into a stub area, as I'm only permitted
> LSA types 1, 2, 3 and 4 in a stub.
STUB: No Type 5.
TSSA: No Type 3/4/5,
--On 5 July 2011 15:55:05 +0200 Ondrej Zajicek
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 02:30:04PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
However, a normal "interface" route (i.e. an attached network)
would create a type 2 LSA in a stubby area.
That is not true - type 2 LSA is created only for non-stub network,
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 02:30:04PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> However, a normal "interface" route (i.e. an attached network)
> would create a type 2 LSA in a stubby area.
That is not true - type 2 LSA is created only for non-stub network, with
at least two routers. Stub networks are just part of t
Ondrej,
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
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 04:21:51PM +0400, Mikhail A. Grishin wrote:
> Moreover, this prefix (94.228.160.0/20) was filtered and not accepted
> because of this BIRD structure:
> # Apply as_path filters on the last AS (originated route)
> allas = [ 15905, 34211, 41206, 44116, 44893, 47773, 48467,
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:09:57AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
>
> --On 5 July 2011 11:16:21 +0200 Ondrej Zajicek
> 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 no
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 11:09:54AM +0100, Neil Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 11:16 +0200, Ondrej Zajicek 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-st
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 01:07:39PM +0100, Matthew Walster wrote:
> 2011/7/5 Mikhail A. Grishin :
> > What purpose of '{' and '}' at BGP.as_path output?
>
> It indicates an "AS Set" - some aggregation happened, the longer
> routes of which were in the two ASNs in the brackets.
Yes
> > Why at 'sh
on 05.07.2011 14:21 Mikhail A. Grishin wrote:
> Matthew Walster wrote, 05.07.2011 16:07:
>> 2011/7/5 Mikhail A. Grishin:
>>> What purpose of '{' and '}' at BGP.as_path output?
>>
>> It indicates an "AS Set" - some aggregation happened, the longer
>> routes of which were in the two ASNs in the brac
Matthew Walster wrote, 05.07.2011 16:07:
2011/7/5 Mikhail A. Grishin:
What purpose of '{' and '}' at BGP.as_path output?
It indicates an "AS Set" - some aggregation happened, the longer
routes of which were in the two ASNs in the brackets.
Why at 'show route' we see only '[i]'? (expected to
2011/7/5 Mikhail A. Grishin :
> What purpose of '{' and '}' at BGP.as_path output?
It indicates an "AS Set" - some aggregation happened, the longer
routes of which were in the two ASNs in the brackets.
> Why at 'show route' we see only '[i]'? (expected to see the first AS in
> as_path)
IMO, it
Hi,
Ordinary as_path from 'show route all' output usually looks like:
-
78.153.135.0/24via 193.232.244.186 on bce1 [R48467x1 2011-07-04
16:16:21] (100) [AS44116i]
Type: BGP unicast univ
BGP.origin: IGP
BGP.as_path: 48467 44116 44116
BG
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 11:16 +0200, Ondrej Zajicek 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
--On 5 July 2011 11:16:21 +0200 Ondrej Zajicek
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.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 03:20:33PM +0100, Neil Wilson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way of turning off the socket listen for OSPF interfaces
> marked as 'stub'?
>
> At the moment I'm running up against the 1024 open file limit on servers
> (such as VM hosts) with lots of interfaces.
>
> I could a
16 matches
Mail list logo
