[AusNOG] OSPF question

[Chris Kawchuk]

And as a follow on....

if they're not infrastructure links (i.e. router to router, TE database requirements, non-MPLS capable links, no other routers sitting behind them, etc.. etc..); might want to think about putting those routes into BGP instead. Non-infrastructure links I always consider to be "customer subnets" anyways. Keeps you from polluting your OSPF (IGP) network with routes 

i.e. insert mantra of "Your IGP should only contain Links, and Loopbacks". ( BGP scales way better for customer/non-critical/non-infrastructure routes )

- CK.



On 19 May 2017, at 1:48 pm, Alex Samad <alex at samad.com.au> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> 
> If I have a router with 4 interface
> 
> int1 connect to the OSPF network / backbone 
> and int 2,3,4 are vlans with no other routers attached 
> 
> say 
> int1 has network 10.10.1.0/24
> int2 has network 10.10.2.0/24
> int3 has network 10.10.3.0/24
> int4 has network 10.10.4.0/24
> 
> 
> If I want the network
> 10.10.2.0/24
> 10.10.3.0/24
> 10.10.4.0/24
> 
> distributed by OSPF, I can add in the interfaces int2-4 and then make them passive as there is no OSPF there.
> 
> Just realised I can also redistribute the prefixes as NSSA-ext1 or 2.
> 
> 
> Whats the difference , which is considered to be best practices, I have also setup interfaces with passive OSPF.
> 
> 
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170519/13ec1a04/attachment.html>