By what other method, short of a static routes, which to a dynamic
protocol are just as bad, do you insert routes for all your connected
interfaces? IMHO it's a very useful comand when you want all your
interfaces to be advertised but do not necessarily run OSPF on all of
them. Or, for that matter, interfaces that run other IGPs.
I've never heard of this being an issue, I'd be interested to hear why
it is such an "evil" command?
-David Curran
On 24 May 2001 06:04:53 -0400, Chris Whyte wrote:
> I just shudder at the fact that people are even thinking about using
> 'redist connected' as an option to get routes associated with connected
> interfaces into OSPF. Bug or not, I've never been in a situation where I
> had to result to using this approach. In large networks (since this is
> the nsp mailing list) it's an evil command and really can't think of a
> sane config that requires its use where there wasn't a better way of
> getting those interfaces into your igp.
>
> I'd be quite happy if csco got rid of it...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> >
> > > Having the interface IP match the network statement qualifies an
> > > interface to run ospf, this is separate issue from passing that
> > > specific connected route or other routes from the routing table
> > > into ospf.
> >
> > It sounds like you are disagreeing with what Ken said, but
> > what Ken said
> > is correct. When a network statement matches an interface's
> > subnet, that
> > subnet will get dumped into the routing table as an intra
> > area route. If
> > you 'redistribute connected', you shove it in as an external route.
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:38 EDT