Re: Blocking OSPF LSA [7:39191]

2002-03-22 Thread John Neiberger
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.

RE: Blocking OSPF LSA [7:39191]

2002-03-22 Thread Wright, Jeremy
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

RE: Blocking OSPF LSA [7:39191]

2002-03-22 Thread Howard C. Berkowitz
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

RE: Blocking OSPF LSA [7:39191]

2002-03-22 Thread Kris Keen
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 ---

Re: Blocking OSPF LSA [7:39191]

2002-03-25 Thread nrf
""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