That's odd, everything I ever touched is default type 1.

On Sun, May 13, 2018, 5:18 PM George Skorup <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The OSPF state machine always prefers an E1 route over an E2 route.
> There's more stuff like multiple areas and ABRs, ASBRs and all that which I
> don't really care about for a couple dozen routers and a single AS. But
> I've always used E1 for the default route. Don't ask me why. Mostly because
> I don't remember. But it was probably some MikroTik bug at some point.
>
> On 5/13/2018 4:53 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>
> So why is type 2 the default on most routers?  For what reason would you
> use an E2 over an E1?
>
> On May 13, 2018, at 17:40, Matt Hoppes <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Ooooo. They are all going out as Metric-type 2
>
> On May 13, 2018, at 17:37, Matt Hoppes <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Correct. A is distributing default route. Directly to C (in theory but not
> happening) and to B which is distributing to C currently.
>
> This is edgeOS.
>
> I’m actually not sure. I’ll have to check on E1 vs E2.
>
> On May 13, 2018, at 17:26, George Skorup <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> OK, so only A is distributing the default route. as-type-1 or as-type-2?
> E1 takes path costs into account. E2 does not.
>
> Bounce a neighbor and see if it fixes itself. I assume RouterOS. I've seen
> weird stuff like this happen before.
>
> On 5/13/2018 4:15 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>
> Only one - the Long one.
>
> The things connected to A take the direct path but the default is not
> coming through for some reason.
>
> On May 13, 2018, at 17:12, George Skorup <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How many default routes show up in the LSA table?
>
> On 5/13/2018 3:51 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>
> OSPF question:
>
>
> A—-B—-C
>
> And
>
> A——C
>
>
> A is the Internet peering router.
>
>
> C should end up with two default routes in it correct?
>
>
> One through B and one directly to C?
>
>
> What’s odd is everything on A populated on Cs route table as direct routes
> - except for the default route.
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to