[c-nsp] Is this possible with OSPF?

[Darren O'Connor]

I would use a static route in the core to get to that other subnets you're talking about. If you had two routers it could be a much more elegant solution by getting each router to originate their primary prefixes via a type 1 LSA, while redistributing the other subnets as type 5s. This way the rest of the network would prefer the type 1 over the type 5 and have each of them backup the other


Thanks
Darren
http://www.mellowd.co.uk/ccie



> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 23:36:08 +0100
> From: gkg at gmx.de
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] Is this possible with OSPF?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a remote site connected via two links at separate places in our
> network. One link (stm1) is the primary route, the second (50M) is
> mostly backup link. So far it's rather easy, using OSPF cost entries in
> the interfaces will take care of that. Anyway, the backup link also has
> a couple of other sites connected in a /27 broadcast net (via a virtual
> switch in the WAN). Those sites (which only have that one uplink)
> announce local addresses (e.g. loopback interfaces) that are used for
> VPN tunnels. Those IPs should be routed via this vswitch link instead of
> the primary link. Which of course means that by setting the OSPF cost on
> the interface, the priority would be lowered, and the routing via the
> regular link would be used ...
> Is there any way (route maps?) to alter the OSPF cost just for certain
> prefixes? I could probably use some tracking and stuff to use static
> routes with lower admin cost to get similar results, but that would
> lower convergence times in case of link failures (I'm using 3 hellos per
> second for quick failover of the links)
> 
> Tnx, Garry
> _______________________________________________
> 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/