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.
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' i
ick?
>
>-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
I too would look at area stub no-summary, this will only propogate a
default route and will not not allow Type 3 LSA's into your area...
Or remove OSPF and just add static routes!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39233&t=39191
---
""Kris Keen"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I too would look at area stub no-summary, this will only propogate a
> default route and will not not allow Type 3 LSA's into your area...
Except, of course, for a type-3 LSA that specifies the default route. In
fact
5 matches
Mail list logo