You learn something every day...
Thanks,
-David Curran
On 28 May 2001 22:59:58 -0400, Chris Whyte wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> This has a potentially long answer since it depends on the problem
> you're trying to solve. I would ask, why don't you want to run ospf on
> those interfaces? Or, is there something wrong with running them
> passive? Or, if those interfaces are running other igps then why not
> just redistribute that igp into ospf?
>
> What I highly suspect is that any perceived requirement to use this
> command is probably just covering up a more fundamental architectural
> issue. Therefore, I would suggest that the architectural issue be dealt
> with first. I've never known anyone say that they need to use this
> command when they finish creating configs to represent their original
> architectural planning. And unfortunately when people do use it for the
> "one-offs" in their network it has a tendency to set a precedent to use
> it all over the place.
>
> > I've never heard of this being an issue, I'd be interested to hear why
> > it is such an "evil" command?
>
> The evil is more in regard to the precedent I mentioned since using it
> all over the place can increase the size of the LSDB considerably. But,
> more specifically, you've now made the router an ASBR which it didn't
> ncessarily need to be. This, of course, causes your abrs to generate
> summary-asbrs for those routers. Any interface that had a network
> statement covering it now essentially has a duplicate entry represented
> by an as-external. And this somewhat defeats the purpose of hierarchy
> and summarization.
>
> There's probably some more I'm missing but that's just off the top of my
> head without really thinking about it that much.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> >
> > -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 - 04:12:39 EDT