Раньше инжект не стояла умолчательно. И это правильно было.
Возможно, не спорю. А вот с тем, что правильно, тут спорно.
RFC 2328 говорит нам о stub следующие:
In some Autonomous Systems, the majority of the link-state database may consist of AS-external-LSAs. An OSPF AS-external-LSA is usually flooded throughout the entire AS. However, OSPF allows certain areas to be configured as "stub areas". AS-external-LSAs are not flooded into/throughout stub areas; routing to AS external destinations in these areas is based on a (per-area) default only. This reduces the link-state database size, and therefore the memory requirements, for a stub area's internal routers.
The algorithm in Section 12.4.3 is optional when Area A is an OSPF stub area. Area border routers connecting to a stub area can originate summary-LSAs into the area according to the Section 12.4.3's algorithm, or can choose to originate only a subset of the summary-LSAs, possibly under configuration control. The fewer LSAs originated, the smaller the stub area's link state database, further reducing the demands on its routers' resources. However, omitting LSAs may also lead to sub-optimal inter-area routing, although routing will continue to function.
То есть исходя из цитаты, ABR может объявлять ограниченный набор LSA type 3, исходя из заданной конфигурации, но не обязан этого делать по умолчанию для stub area.
Поэтому в этой части вашего высказывания я с вами не согласен. 🙂