Don't ignore reject/bh routes. Discussed with Paul in IRC.

diff --git a/ospfd/ChangeLog b/ospfd/ChangeLog
index 87a55111fd70caaeb685301b47fff9b273ab889e..39a18879dfe625b8a569418b8d2941f6d31dbd3f 100644 (file)
--- a/ospfd/ChangeLog
+++ b/ospfd/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2004-04-22 Hasso Tepper <hasso@estpak.ee>
+
+       * ospf_zebra.c: Don't ignore reject/bh routes, it's the only way
+         to "summarize" routes in ASBR at the moment.
+
 2004-04-20 Hasso Tepper <hasso@estpak.ee>
 
        * ospfd.c: Unset NP flag if area is going to be normal or stub.

diff --git a/ospfd/ospf_zebra.c b/ospfd/ospf_zebra.c
index 300105f492b1997be2ef5b9f515b84b48b6ac8aa..ab9844fcdc5e60f4fffd76527f7cc817f0e1df3f 100644 (file)
--- a/ospfd/ospf_zebra.c
+++ b/ospfd/ospf_zebra.c
@@ -821,13 +821,15 @@ ospf_zebra_read_ipv4 (int command, struct zclient *zclient,
   if (command == ZEBRA_IPV4_ROUTE_ADD)
     {
       /* XXX|HACK|TODO|FIXME:
-       * ignore reject/blackhole routes 
-       * need a better generalised solution for these types
-       * really.
+       * Maybe we should ignore reject/blackhole routes? Testing shows that
+       * there is no problems though and this is only way to "summarize"
+       * routes in ASBR at the moment. Maybe we need just a better generalised
+       * solution for these types?
+       *
+       * if ( CHECK_FLAG (api.flags, ZEBRA_FLAG_BLACKHOLE)
+       *     || CHECK_FLAG (api.flags, ZEBRA_FLAG_REJECT))
+       * return 0;
        */
-      if ( CHECK_FLAG (api.flags, ZEBRA_FLAG_BLACKHOLE)
-           || CHECK_FLAG (api.flags, ZEBRA_FLAG_REJECT))
-        return 0;
         
       ei = ospf_external_info_add (api.type, p, ifindex, nexthop);