Cirrus
Nacreoushave you used ospf area setting based on adjacency in order to enable auto summarization?
this cisco docs explains some examples.
it's not f5 but the mechanism should be applicable
https://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=2294214&seqNum=3
CirrusHi,
the networks are all in the same area
pre super-netting (21 statements)
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/28 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/22 area n
networks 192.168.x.0/29 area n
here, the 192.168 subnet wasn’t advertised
post super-netting (12 statements)
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/24 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/20 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/21 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/28 area n
networks 10.x.x.0/22 area n
networks 192.168.x.0/29 area n
now working fine
If I was unable to super-net I’d need to use – I tested this before implementing the super-netting
net.ipv4.igmp_max_memberships=25 (>20)