I'm not a super-expert with OSPF, but also keep in mind that there are
a few fundamental features Quagga is still missing.
You are probably looking for here is the summary-address statement for
the OSPF router, which unfortunately is still not in Quagga (along with
default passive-interface). Another way around this issue for you
would be to effectively use areas. At least then, even though area 0
will see all the little routes, it is my understanding, that the other
non-0 areas will not see the routes to other non-0 areas. Finally,
read up on stubby areas and not-so-stubby areas, those can at least
help the leaf areas of your network to not worry about getting huge
route table updates.
Michael F. DeMan
Director of Technology
OpenAccess Network Services
Bellingham, WA 98225
On Jul 17, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> I've tried hunting all over the net to find some information about
> but haven't had much luck. I figure there are some basics that I just
> don't grasp, and the reading I've done hasn't helped. All the stuff
> read basically just says you run a few IOS commands and all is right
> the world.
> I have two independant connections up into the network at our facility,
> each one hooks into a different switch and core router in their
> On our local side, I have a bunch of subnets which my two routers act
> has a
> redundant routing pair for. Ideally I'd like to have the routers talk
> the upstream router and the other router via OSPF, so that they can
> traffic between them if necessary.
> As long as I bring up zebra with only the interfaces up for the
> network and the network I want the two routers exchanging packets on,
> seems to work as I'd like. However, if I have the interfaces for all
> local subnets (aliased interfaces) up, ospfd will start trying to
> routing information on all those virtual interfaces, and none of them
> up. I haven't seen a way to block announcements on all but the few
> interfaces I want them to talk on.
> Many of the subnets are congituous, and I'd like to just announce the
> larger blocks.
> Also, we are getting a whole pile of little routes from our upstream
> routers, which I'd be just as happy to ignore and let the default take
> of it. Is there any way to filter incoming OSPF route announcements?
> seen mention of it, but haven't actually seen a way to do it.
> My config is basically as follows. Say my routers talk to the
> facility in
> /30 blocks in 10.254.0.0, and my local blocks are 10.0.0.0 and
> interface fxp0
> ip ospf cost 10
> interface em0
> ip ospf cost 1
> ip ospf priority 1
> ip ospf authentication-key xyzzy
> router ospf
> ospf router-id 10.254.0.2
> network 10.254.0.0/30 area 0
> network 10.0.0.0/24 area 100
> network 10.0.2.0/24 area 100
> area 100 authentication
> The other router would have a router-id of 10.254.0.6/30. I'd have,
> example, router IPs of 10.0.0.252-254/24 for one block, and then might
> 10.0.2.5-7/29, 10.0.2.12-14/29, ...
> Any thoughts on this?
> I'm tempted to go back to BGP because it seemed like there was much
> control of the things I'd like to control that way. However, it also
> a hell of a long time for the routing table to update when a primary
> unavailable. Even on a 2.6GHz P4 with Linux it took around a minute to
> revoke the old routes and instate new ones. I guess maybe I could
> incoming announcements so that I could get something between a default
> route and all the individual routes. On the other hand, I'm probably
> doing premature optimization...
> "If all you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a
> Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff <jafo@xxxxxxxxx>
> tummy.com, ltd. - Linux Consulting since 1995: Ask me about High
> Back off man. I'm a scientist. http:// Society.org/
> Zebra mailing list
Zebra mailing list