[j-nsp] External routes in OSPF database

Alex D. listensammler at gmx.de
Sat Jul 9 20:52:10 EDT 2011


Thanks for the replies.

 > You should upgrade as soon as possible if your hardware supports it.
Hardware is M10i and software upgrade is already on schedule. On our new 
MX240, i use 10.4R4.5. I still have to do some testing, before i upgrade 
production routers.

 > One might also ask - why not use BGP instead of OSPF towards the CPE?
 > Sounds like BGP would be a much more appropriate tool for the job.
That would be an viable solution. Our actual PE-Router is a Cisco. My 
first approach was to migrate the whole EIGRP stuff to OSPF. But it 
seems, that was a bad idea....

 >I would check the ios config for a redistribute bgp under isis or such.
No there is no such redistribution.

 > Are you sure that it is all the BGP routes?  If you redistributed the 
 > whole table into OSPF and then advertised it to all 30 routers the
 > network would probably melt down.
That's pretty clear and was definitely not my intention.

 > Are you sure that it is all the BGP routes?
I didn't examine all routes in detail, but the quantity brought me to 
that conclusion.

 >Should be easy to confirm from where the externals are originating 
 >through its router-id.
 > Your probably learning them from the customer
The CPE router is also under my control and only advertise it's local 
networks. There's only "redistribute connected" under "router ospf 1" 
configured. The externals originate from the PE-routers itself and i 
don't find a reason why they appear only when adjacency is up.

 > Also if the routers weren't coming from the customer they would
 > probably still be there when you shut down the ospf neighbor with
 > them.
Yes, that is the point i understand not a bit.

 > If you wish *only* a default and type 1/2 lsas (and a type 3 for the 
 > default) you may consider setting as a totally stubby network (which 
 > should not be area 0)
Hmm, is it possible to configure OSPF only with e.g. area 0.0.0.1 
without having an area 0.0.0.0 ? I didn't try that before and thought 
that area 0.0.0.0 is always needed.

Regards,
Alex




More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list