Hi, On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Brian Spade <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Pete & Pete for your insight. :-) > > I was hoping to get more feedback from engineers, but this definitely > helps.
Strange comment. Anyway, if it was me, I'd: router ospf <processID> passive-interface default no passive-interface uplink1 ... no passive-interface uplink4 ! interface VlanA ip ospf <processID> area <n> ... interface VlanZ ip ospf <processID> area <n> I like the "ip ospf area" interface command better than network statements. It's a personal preference as the end result is the same. Irrespective of the method you choose, it's easy to get a quick summary of what interface is in what area with "show ip ospf interface brief" One potential benefit of redistributing them is that you'd be able to summarise all the SVIs into that one area you mentioned. Another is that in the process of redistributing you could do some route-map voodoo to make "different stuff" happen. I guess whether you turn this core router into an ASBR depends on your current network design (e.g. area design, # of routes, OSPF router load) and where you see it going in the future. If it's just "how would you inject these routes into OSPF?", see above. cheers, Dale _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
