Ok – that’s a very valid way and common approach especially as a network scales up. We use that approach in my $$$job along with RSVP for MPLS backbone – works extremely well…
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Robertson Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 12:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mt ospf question For some, it's a matter of network design philosophy. One school of thought says that OSPF should only be used to pass router adjacencies around, in which case you want to be very explicit about what prefixes you allow into OSPF. All other prefixes would then be distributed via iBGP. And in the iBGP case as well, you would then be explicit about what you allow in. The theory is that OSPF, having only a small number of prefixes, would converge extremely quickly on the failure of a link. (In this way, OSPF is behaving kind of like a Layer 3 spanning tree.) Meanwhile, iBGP is capable of scaling to a very large number of prefixes, and would normally never have to converge at all, as any topology changes are invisible to it. On 05/21/2015 08:59 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: i dont understand why the pop routers wouldnt just distribute connected. In not questioning to be a dick, I just dont understand. I cant see any reason there would be a route on a pop router under normal circumstances that i wouldnt want distributed? I have a total of three days of production OSPF so, though I know this makes me a secialist, Im wanting to learn On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Stefan Englhardt <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Ok. That’s a way ;-)). Von: Af [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] Im Auftrag von Faisal Imtiaz Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Mai 2015 15:52 An: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] mt ospf question >>. Doing this you enable ospf on the interfaces with addresses within >>x.x.x.x/x. This is not wanted on all edge networks/customer networks. You are absolutely right Stefan, my colleagues failed to mention (assumed), that you should put all your physical interfaces in the OSPF interface and set them up as passive :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <tel:%28305%29663-5518> Option 2 or Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> _____ From: "Stefan Englhardt" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:45:04 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mt ospf question Doing this you enable ospf on the interfaces with addresses within x.x.x.x/x. This is not wanted on all edge networks/customer networks. Von: Af [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Shayne Lebrun Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Mai 2015 15:33 An: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] mt ospf question You tell the router what routes to redistribute, rather than telling the router to redistribute everything that’s there. There’s never a reason not to simply take the extra five seconds to type ‘/routing ospf network add network=x.x.x.x/x area=whatever’. There’s a lot of very good reasons not to, however. From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 8:16 AM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mt ospf question Looked twice at this. How does your network know the route to a network connected to one of your routers if he does not redistribute this information into ospf? Von: Af [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Dennis Burgess Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Mai 2015 14:10 An: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] mt ospf question There are about 0 times when you should distribute connected, just a FYI. 99% of the time it causes issues with unintended and/or unneeded distribution of routes .. Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> – 314-735-0270 <tel:314-735-0270> – www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gilbert Gutierrez Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:47 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mt ospf question Are you redistributing Connected? If the /30 is not on the networks tab, then you will need to redistribute connected routes. If you add static routes pointing to places you will want to redistribute static routes as well. Gilbert On 5/20/2015 1:03 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: So I have this here mikrotik Ive been implementing ospf on Right now because this is transition, all MT ports hit the same switch Eth6 is on a /30 that is going to a powercode BMU thats distributing the default route, it works fine Eth2 is on a /30 that is going to a fortigate, it works fine the routes propagate as they should I initially tried to add another /30 to Eth2 for a second fortigate, but it wouldnt let me add the netwok so I put that /30 on eth3 it comes up in a state designated router I moved it to eth4, same thing designated router the other two that are working have said backup all along is there something about adding a third ospf interface to mikrotik i need to know here? -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. !DSPAM:2,555e00ec106121683516602!
