Re: [OSPF] Neighbour processing

[Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se>]

Acee Lindem <acee.lindem at ericsson.com> wrote on 17/11/2009 16:40:10:
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se]
> |Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:24 AM
> |To: Acee Lindem
> |Cc: ospf at ietf.org
> |Subject: RE: [OSPF] Neighbour processing
> |
> |Acee Lindem <acee.lindem at ericsson.com> wrote on 17/11/2009 14:36:10:
> |>
> |> Hi Joakim,
> |> If the inteface state is Waiting, then the BackupSeen event is
> |> scheduled. For more advanced interface states, the NeighborChange
> |> event is scheduled. You would never schedule both of them.
> |> Hope this Helps,
> |
> |Yes it does, thanks.
> |Clarification though: "never schedule both of them" is that per bullet?
> |If the first bullet schedules either a BackupSeen or
> |NeighborChange should the next bullet be skipped?
>
> Yes. Only one bullet is applicable and the conditions predicating each bullet
> should be mutually exclusive.

Thanks, this makes sense.

>
> |
> |New question same chaper(10.5) there is:
> |        When receiving an Hello Packet from a neighbor on a broadcast,
> |        Point-to-MultiPoint or NBMA network, set the neighbor
> |        structure's Neighbor ID equal to the Router ID found in the
> |        packet's OSPF header.  For these network types, the neighbor
> |        structure's Router Priority field, Neighbor's Designated Router
> |        field, and Neighbor's Backup Designated Router field are also
> |        set equal to the corresponding fields found in the received
> |        Hello Packet; changes in these fields should be noted for
> |        possible use in the steps below.  When receiving an Hello on a
> |        point-to-point network (but not on a virtual link) set the
> |        neighbor structure's Neighbor IP address to the packet's IP
> |        source address.
> |
> |I don't understand how virtual link fits. Should a Vlink be
> |considered to be in the same group as "broadcast,
> |Point-to-MultiPoint or NBMA network" or is it its own group?
> |If so what should be for vlinks?
>
> A virtual link will have the same interface states as a point-to-point
> interface except the Loopback state isn't applicable. Also, the InterfaceUp
> event only occurs when the virtual link endpoint is reachable across the transit area.

This seems to indicate that I should treat a Vlink the same as a p2p link above,
however the paragraph explicitly say I should not so now I am confused :)
Exactly what should be done to a Vlink in the above context?