[c-nsp] passive-interface on VRF-specific OSPF process

[Phil Mayers]

Manu Chao wrote:
> type-2 ;)
> 
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak <ip at ioshints.info> wrote:
> 
>>>> while configuring an OSPF process for a VRF on a Cisco 3550-12G
>>>> (running 12.2(25)SE) I notice that the command "passive-interface"
>>>> is unavailable. How can this be? Is there another way I can
>>> suppress
>>>> routing updates on an interface?
>>> You can put actual network commands in ospf configuration section. For
>>> example:
>>>
>>> network 172.16.8.1 0.0.0.0
>>> network 172.17.0.30 0.0.0.0
>>> network 172.17.0.242 0.0.0.0
>>>
>>> It will activate interfaces in the target VRF only. You can
>>> redistribute
>>>   any other routes you need to announce.
>> ... And we're back to the neverending question: ignoring the obvious
>> implications for stub areas, is it better to advertise connected subnets as
>> parts of router (type-1) LSA or as individual external (type-5) routes?

I used to be definitely in favour of type-5, then Bruce Pinsky was kind 
enough to reply to an email on this list:

http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2006-November/035851.html

Nowadays, we're all BGP so it's moot!