[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [OSPF] Unnumbered PtoP router LSA question.
Hi Acee
Thanks for your quick answer. I have seen the example but I didn't think
an example was authorative. Can I trust this example and/or your statement
to be authorative?
Can I have your list of RFC 2328 inaccuracies?
Jocke
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee at redback.com]
> Sent: den 6 januari 2009 17:56
> To: Joakim Tjernlund
> Cc: ospf at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] Unnumbered PtoP router LSA question.
>
> Hi Joakim,
> While it certainly isn't described very well, the intent is that the
> second router link is omitted for unnumbered links. If you look at
> the example for RT3's backbone area router LSA on page 134, you'll
> note the omission.
>
> ; RT3's router-LSA for the backbone
>
> LS age = 0 ;always true on origination
> Options = (E-bit) ;
> LS type = 1 ;indicates router-LSA
> Link State ID = 192.1.1.3 ;RT3's router ID
> Advertising Router = 192.1.1.3 ;RT3's router ID
> bit E = 0 ;not an AS boundary router
> bit B = 1 ;area border router
> #links = 1
> Link ID = 18.10.0.6 ;Neighbor's Router ID
> Link Data = 0.0.0.3 ;MIB-II ifIndex of P-P link
> Type = 1 ;connects to router
> # TOS metrics = 0
> metrFrom ospf-bounces at ietf.org Tue Jan 6 10:31:34 2009
Return-Path: <ospf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ospf-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9683A6830;
Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:31:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ospf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BC03A63D2
for <ospf at core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:31:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.496,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 9zH6uTn1o4Oc for <ospf at core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.transmode.se (mail.transmode.se [83.241.175.147])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C553A6892
for <ospf at ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jockexp ([192.168.105.34]) by mail.transmode.se with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:31:10 +0100
From: "Joakim Tjernlund" <Joakim.Tjernlund at transmode.se>
To: "'Acee Lindem'" <acee at redback.com>
References: <001701c9701a$73c8f460$5b5add20$ at Tjernlund@transmode.se>
<BBDB23A7-EEAE-44D7-AB64-DC2B14C11117 at redback.com>
In-Reply-To: <BBDB23A7-EEAE-44D7-AB64-DC2B14C11117 at redback.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:31:06 +0100
Message-ID: <002001c9702c$f007ba40$d0172ec0$ at Tjernlund@transmode.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AclwH5mYc8t/tTc9T8OJKqAhc8CN8wADJGRA
Content-Language: sv
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2009 18:31:11.0027 (UTC)
FILETIME=[F2BF6030:01C9702C]
Cc: ospf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Unnumbered PtoP router LSA question.
X-BeenThere: ospf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>,
<mailto:ospf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>,
<mailto:ospf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ospf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ospf-bounces at ietf.org
Hi Acee
Thanks for your quick answer. I have seen the example but I didn't think
an example was authorative. Can I trust this example and/or your statement
to be authorative?
Can I have your list of RFC 2328 inaccuracies?
Jocke
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee at redback.com]
> Sent: den 6 januari 2009 17:56
> To: Joakim Tjernlund
> Cc: ospf at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] Unnumbered PtoP router LSA question.
>
> Hi Joakim,
> While it certainly isn't described very well, the intent is that the
> second router link is omitted for unnumbered links. If you look at
> the example for RT3's backbone area router LSA on page 134, you'll
> note the omission.
>
> ; RT3's router-LSA for the backbone
>
> LS age = 0 ;always true on origination
> Options = (E-bit) ;
> LS type = 1 ;indicates router-LSA
> Link State ID = 192.1.1.3 ;RT3's router ID
> Advertising Router = 192.1.1.3 ;RT3's router ID
> bit E = 0 ;not an AS boundary router
> bit B = 1 ;area border router
> #links = 1
> Link ID = 18.10.0.6 ;Neighbor's Router ID
> Link Data = 0.0.0.3 ;MIB-II ifIndex of P-P link
> Type = 1 ;connects to router
> # TOS metrics = 0
> metric = 8
>ic = 8
>
> I'll keep this in my list of RFC 2328 inaccuracies.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > In RFC 2328, Chap 12.4.1.1, reads:
> > 12.4.1.1. Describing point-to-point interfaces
> >
> > For point-to-point interfaces, one or more link
> > descriptions are added to the router-LSA as follows:
> >
> > o If the neighboring router is fully adjacent, add a
> > Type 1 link (point-to-point). The Link ID
> > should be
> > set to the Router ID of the neighboring router.
> > For
> > numbered point-to-point networks, the Link Data
> > should specify the IP interface address. For
> > unnumbered point-to-point networks, the Link Data
> > field should specify the interface's MIB-II [Ref8]
> > ifIndex value. The cost should be set to the
> > output
> > cost of the point-to-point interface.
> >
> > o In addition, as long as the state of the interface
> > is "Point-to-Point" (and regardless of the
> > neighboring router state), a Type 3 link (stub
> > network) should be added. There are two forms that
> > this stub link can take:
> >
> > Option 1
> > Assuming that the neighboring router's IP
> > address is known, set the Link ID of the
> > Type 3
> > link to the neighbor's IP address, the Link
> > Data
> > to the mask 0xffffffff (indicating a host
> > route), and the cost to the interface's
> > configured output cost.[15]
> >
> > Option 2
> > If a subnet has been assigned to the point-to-
> > point link, set the Link ID of the Type 3 link
> > to the subnet's IP address, the Link Data
> > to the
> > subnet's mask, and the cost to the interface's
> > configured output cost.[16]
> >
> > I have a hard time figuring out what to do with Option 1 and Option
> > 2 for unnumbered
> > PtoP interfaces. I don't think either of them applies to an
> > unnumbered link so
> > I wonder if one should omit both Options?
> > However 12.4.1.1 starts with:
> > For point-to-point interfaces, one or more link
> > descriptions are added to the router-LSA as follows
> >
> > which could be read as there must always be one or more items and
> > as the first
> > item needs to have a fully adjacent router you could end up with
> > zero items in the LSA for
> > a PtoP interface.
> > So what should one do?
> >
> > Jocke
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OSPF mailing list
> > OSPF at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> I'll keep this in my list of RFC 2328 inaccuracies.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > In RFC 2328, Chap 12.4.1.1, reads:
> > 12.4.1.1. Describing point-to-point interfaces
> >
> > For point-to-point interfaces, one or more link
> > descriptions are added to the router-LSA as follows:
> >
> > o If the neighboring router is fully adjacent, add a
> > Type 1 link (point-to-point). The Link ID
> > should be
> > set to the Router ID of the neighboring router.
> > For
> > numbered point-to-point networks, the Link Data
> > should specify the IP interface address. For
> > unnumbered point-to-point networks, the Link Data
> > field should specify the interface's MIB-II [Ref8]
> > ifIndex value. The cost should be set to the
> > output
> > cost of the point-to-point interface.
> >
> > o In addition, as long as the state of the interface
> > is "Point-to-Point" (and regardless of the
> > neighboring router state), a Type 3 link (stub
> > network) should be added. There are two forms that
> > this stub link can take:
> >
> > Option 1
> > Assuming that the neighboring router's IP
> > address is known, set the Link ID of the
> > Type 3
> > link to the neighbor's IP address, the Link
> > Data
> > to the mask 0xffffffff (indicating a host
> > route), and the cost to the interface's
> > configured output cost.[15]
> >
> > Option 2
> > If a subnet has been assigned to the point-to-
> > point link, set the Link ID of the Type 3 link
> > to the subnet's IP address, the Link Data
> > to the
> > subnet's mask, and the cost to the interface's
> > configured output cost.[16]
> >
> > I have a hard time figuring out what to do with Option 1 and Option
> > 2 for unnumbered
> > PtoP interfaces. I don't think either of them applies to an
> > unnumbered link so
> > I wonder if one should omit both Options?
> > However 12.4.1.1 starts with:
> > For point-to-point interfaces, one or more link
> > descriptions are added to the router-LSA as follows
> >
> > which could be read as there must always be one or more items and
> > as the first
> > item needs to have a fully adjacent router you could end up with
> > zero items in the LSA for
> > a PtoP interface.
> > So what should one do?
> >
> > Jocke
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OSPF mailing list
> > OSPF at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf