[c-nsp] IOS-XR OSPF path selection

[Randy]

--- On Fri, 3/1/13, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <oboehmer at cisco.com> wrote:

> From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) <oboehmer at cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS-XR OSPF path selection
> To: "Robert Blayzor" <rblayzor.bulk at inoc.net>, "cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net list" <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Date: Friday, March 1, 2013, 11:23 PM
> 
> >According to the IOS-XR documentation on OSPF:
> >
> >ASBR routes can be advertised as a Type 1 or Type 2 ASE.
> The difference
> >between Type 1 and Type 2 is how the cost is calculated.
> For a Type 2
> >ASE, only the external cost (metric) is considered when
> multiple paths to
> >the same destination are compared. For a Type 1 ASE, the
> combination of
> >the external cost and cost to reach the ASBR is used.
> Type 2 external
> >cost is the default and is always more costly than an
> OSPF route and used
> >only if no OSPF route exists.
> >
> >This seems to not be the standard behavior of IOS or
> NX-OS.  With IOS or
> >NX-OS you can influence type-1 or type-2 routes via
> interface cost.  But
> >in IOS-XR only type-1 are effected by interface cost,
> but not type-2.
> 
> huh? no compliant OSPF router (no matter which OS/brand)
> should consider
> the cost to reach an ASBR when installing a type-2 external
> in its RIB, so
> not sure what you mean by the above? can you give an
> example?
> the ancient, but still valid OSPF Design Guide at
> http://tools.cisco.com/squish/0D377 shows an example
> how E1 and E2s are
> installed..
>  
>     oli
 

perhaps this:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_white_paper09186a0080094e9e.shtml (doesn't require a login)
./Randy