>According to the IOS-XR documentation on OSPF: > >ASBR routes can be advertised as a Type 1 or Type 2 ASE. The difference >between Type 1 and Type 2 is how the cost is calculated. For a Type 2 >ASE, only the external cost (metric) is considered when multiple paths to >the same destination are compared. For a Type 1 ASE, the combination of >the external cost and cost to reach the ASBR is used. Type 2 external >cost is the default and is always more costly than an OSPF route and used >only if no OSPF route exists. > >This seems to not be the standard behavior of IOS or NX-OS. With IOS or >NX-OS you can influence type-1 or type-2 routes via interface cost. But >in IOS-XR only type-1 are effected by interface cost, but not type-2.
huh? no compliant OSPF router (no matter which OS/brand) should consider the cost to reach an ASBR when installing a type-2 external in its RIB, so not sure what you mean by the above? can you give an example? the ancient, but still valid OSPF Design Guide at http://tools.cisco.com/squish/0D377 shows an example how E1 and E2s are installed.. oli _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
