 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Richard,
See below.
Richard Ogier wrote:
Acee,
Can you answer my questions below?
Thanks, Richard
In the simulations for Smart Peering, what neighbors were included in the router-LSAs? If only adjacent neighbors were included, then that could explain the lower overhead obtained for Smart Peering, and would also result in highly suboptimal paths (much longer than shortest paths). That is why simulation results are not very meaningful unless other measures such as average path length and delivery ratio are also presented. (The average path length can be obtained from the numbers of UDP packets sent/forwarded/received, but I did not see those numbers.)
All routable neighbor are advertised.
Also, since Cisco is running SPF twice, once for real adjacencies
and once for all acceptable links, I would like to know how
a router knows which non-local links are real adjacencies.
Does the LSA somehow indicate this?
A U bit is defined in the unused 8 bits in the LSA link.
Is a different Link State ID used for real adjacenies versus non-adjacencies?
Nope.
Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________ Ospf-wireless-design mailing list Ospf-wireless-design at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design