OSPFNSSA and Totally Stub area solve the problem caused by maintaining an excessively large LSDB in the end area, but for some specific scenarios, they are not the best solution.

Question

Options

• ATRUE
• BFALSE

• A
  72% (28)
• B
  28% (11)

Explanation

Option A is correct because while OSPF Totally Stub and NSSA areas do reduce LSDB size - Totally Stub by blocking Type 3/4/5 LSAs and NSSA by substituting Type 7 LSAs for Type 5 - they impose trade-offs that make them unsuitable in certain scenarios. For example, if an end area requires reachability to specific external destinations rather than a catch-all default route, relying on a default alone can cause suboptimal or broken routing. Similarly, NSSA still allows external routes via Type 7 LSAs (converted to Type 5 at the ABR), meaning it doesn't fully eliminate external routing overhead in all topologies. Option B is wrong simply because it denies the trade-offs exist - these area types are useful tools, but not universally optimal solutions.

Memory tip: Think of Stub/NSSA areas as a "diet plan" for the LSDB - great for reducing bloat, but if your area needs precise directions to specific destinations (not just "take the highway out"), the one-size-fits-all default route leaves you lost.

No community discussion yet for this question.