Stub area and totally stub area and default route 0.0.0.0/0 and other conce

[zillah2004]

Cisco curriculum CCNP1 V3.0 Article 6.7.1 says:

((A stub area does not accept information about routes external to the AS. the ABR on the stub automatically propagates a 0.0.0.0/0 default route within the area)).

(( A totally stubby area is a stub area that blocks external Type 5 LSAs and summary (Type 3 and Type 4) LSAs from entering the area.

This way, intra-area routes and the default of 0.0.0.0/0 are the only routes known to the stub area.,,,,,,,should not it say “ to the totally stub area” instead of “to the stub area” ?

ABRs inject the default summary link 0.0.0.0/0 into the totally stubby area)).

1- Both area (stub and totally stub) have got type 1 and type 2

2- Stub area has got type 3 only, whiles totally stub has not got that .

3- Both of them have got default route 0.0.0.0/0.

4- Now we can conclude that the difference between the stub and totally stub is only type 3,,,Am I right ?

5- Does the default route for stub area is of type 3 (why I am saying that see below) ? If so,,that means there is no difference between stub and totally stub!!! Any explanation

6- And suppose the default route is of type 3,,,what does that mean ?

If you look to the second figure in the link below

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/21.html

It shows me that the default route that will be injected in Stub area and totally stubby area is type 3,,,,,,,,Is this typo ? because it looks different form what the Cisco curriculum states,,,,,,,Any comment ?

In another document (Internet work Expert Lab)

“A stub area blocks OSPF external routes (LSA 5) form entering the area. The ABR of a stub area automatically generates a default route (LSA 3) into the stub area “.

[nethelper]

Hello,

-->This way, intra-area routes and the default of 0.0.0.0/0 are the only routes known to the stub area.,,,,,,,should not it say “ to the totally stub area” instead of “to the stub area” ? <--

The totally stubby area would only have the default (type 3) route, while the stub area would have the inter-area routes AND the default route. So I think the statement above should read ´This way, inter-area routes and the default of 0.0.0.0/0 are the only routes known to the stub area.,,,,,,,should not it say “ to the totally stub area” instead of “to the stub area” ?

Also, the default route injected in both stub and totally stub areas is a type 3, where in the curriculum does it say something else ?

The difference between stub and totally stub is that the totally stubby area would not allow type 3 & 4 inter-area routes (which the stubby area does allow), and instead only generate a default type 3.

Does that make sense ? It can be somewhat tedious to get the concept...

Regards,

Nethelper

[zillah2004]

You are saying : ((The totally stubby area would only have the default (type 3) route, while the stub area would have the inter-area routes AND the default route.)),,,

That is fine

((So I think the statement above should read ´This way, inter-area routes and the default of 0.0.0.0/0 are the only routes known to the stub area))

Correct me if I am wrongor

A-

"1-Intra-area (Type 1 and Type 2)

2- Inter-area (Type 3 only not type 4)

3- Default of type 3 (I did not say type 0.0.0.0/0 because I think you consider it a typo? ) are the only routes known to the stub area".

alternatively :

B-

"1-Intra-area routes (Type 1 and Type 2)

2- No inter-area routes

3- Default of type 3 are the only routes known to the totally stubby area".

((where in the curriculum does it say something else ? ))

Shall I consider that there is typo in Cisco curriculum ?

((The difference between stub and totally stub is that the totally stubby area would not allow type 3 & 4 inter-area routes {which the stubby area does allow}, and instead only generate a default type 3.

))

1- Yes that is fine with totally stubby area it does not allow inter-area (type 3 and type 4).

2- But with stub area it does allowe inter-area type 3 only not type 4 (It does not allow type 4).

3- The reason I am saying that, that one guy in this forum has prooved that for me form RFC