[j-nsp] ISIS Case Study in JNCIP..Summarization into Backbone

[Daniel Verlouw]

On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 01:16 -0700, Hoogen wrote:
> Now from my understanding of the question I need to deny the longer more
> specific routes... on R5 filter saying 172.16.40/29 longer the reject...

yes it is quite common to suppress the more specifics. A more scalable
approach would be to use the 'aggregate-contributor' match condition to
suppress the more specifics, e.g.:

term accept-aggregates {
  from {
    protocol aggregate;
  }
  to level 2;
  then accept;
}
term reject-more-specifics {
  from {
    aggregate-contributor;
  }
  to level 2;
  then reject;
}


   --Daniel.