[c-nsp] OSPF and access prefixes

[Rodney Dunn]

That's what I was getting at.  The problem comes
when you assign static IP addresses and the termination
point can move.

Rodney

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 12:09:53PM -0400, James Hampton wrote:
> T1 customers will have individual subnets redistributed, but these
> hardly ever fluctuate or flap. DSL customers terminate to a loopback
> interface(s) and are all on the same class C (s). I am planning on
> putting the loopback interface into ospf and advertise the whole block
> rather than redistribute connected which would, like you said, give me
> a whole bunch of /32's in the routing table, which I don't want. We
> are set up with the Cisco DSL architecture using a 6400 UAC and 6160
> Dslams.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:24:20 -0400, Rodney Dunn <rodunn at cisco.com> wrote:
> > Are you handing out static addresses so you could summarize
> > in a POP or are you saying you need /32's redistributed
> > in to OSPF everywhere?
> > 
> > I've seen this before with OSPF:
> > 
> > IP routing table name is Default-IP-Routing-Table(0)
> > Route Source    Networks    Subnets     Overhead    Memory (bytes)
> > connected       0           985         63176       157600
> > static          1           767         49280       122880
> > ospf 100        13          5334        837632      855520
> >  Intra-area: 1 Inter-area: 96 External-1: 25 External-2: 5225
> >  NSSA External-1: 0 NSSA External-2: 0
> > Total           99122       53581       10162184    26359260
> > 
> > All static routes to customers are redistributed in to OSPF.
> > 
> > Not that I would advise that but that's the way they had it
> > set up.  It was leased line aggregation.
> > 
> > Rodney
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 02:56:45PM -0400, James Hampton wrote:
> > > I am with a Broadband provider, and we are in the process of migrating
> > > to ospf. Our current plan is to use ospf for all interior routing and
> > > BGP on our edges. I know it is better to use the IBGP/route reflector
> > > model for access prefixes, but I'm weighing the complexity and
> > > engineering time it would take to set this up vs. using ospf
> > > exclusively and switching to IBGP at a later date. I'm really under
> > > the gun and time is a factor. Does anyone have a similar set up?
> > > Advice welcome.
> > >
> > > James
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >