IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] Question about OSPF (transit area routing loop)

Sergey SHpenkov <sergey.v.shpenkov@gmail.com> Wed, 26 February 2020 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sergey.v.shpenkov@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB2D3A0F97 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:21:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K-EvZAFBrnci for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54A5A3A0F98 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id w69so1506711ilk.6 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:21:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ba+BrBPnbsyeVZE5Zcx15IKBGbOOaO8sIKrQ8NcQVhQ=; b=nvkh8UozQMLpWQ3Gfrqhz0VBE4heXL8HpNx2v54Z3S+kdoYrLEE5a5U1wqPBLg22GS 1/WVJ5yq6g7VEyTGLS5SZIQ8DHA6oG5ZIXZ1uCWq7nYVkFq0TYSnqcgigSuHq2dzyIFk 9oyLGGh+9194WB+zMuBny23JFS7UBXwQk7k3Qfd4kvlSarKoHo6U2pDylydt1qgIkvKs tOvqqOpFxh3WQgaN95z26/urZoHRvJTDO1dE2jIcQ03rWcIPUj82AUv5HeQFVmKrr/fK lawMZsMezBObVTyEU3XF2IwHqVSO9xwx+REZCBGtq5vAY0UzkgNNF40/ySABBgaKpr2z KFdw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ba+BrBPnbsyeVZE5Zcx15IKBGbOOaO8sIKrQ8NcQVhQ=; b=YQtBGRCuwSb0TEJuh6YtON5jQZFcrnJAEn/Gm70/L/tUupeizFkIGa02OE3KK6+G9L 4cbzxjkIKhTq49K9hau7IYqeNlKrK82UvRCiFQwVhzG5ZZ15tb3oLe77KC7+t8NWLpGq wYB5taIIUIUVBdsWrR2rzuGB7/7ARW6AC7YMGKy9wp4GLmfbjbb6AciPr+NzXpQa34WJ 21H0pms+7HRlNPKAednpH7N0BEYj+rgknkrHyFTVRIBlg85c9PmZPoBp3OVZpCXtH8vL cdwgmy+8CP5C9EhD9zeJa9a6ri7KPO9MLv4arCICXwlbJWuBx9JWWBhQu6f690CH3kqf JSJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWLw0ZXOJ3OG6oi/aHDkIuSMRLwhGuAMhQhSppVfsoOzp9Xx35T 7utJPgIADdM01P2azG194wjaNK9ce/5/HsCPECNnPw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwhyb+Ly5Htghb6GIyeK9TWN53aAtfPp1KJixQkqz39ovdRE9wocbygDDUDYX51xa8tO5AsT8ICZ9xT8kv5dG8=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:b74c:: with SMTP id c12mr2689998ilm.154.1582701710212; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:21:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD4HJpqOJC0DSeb_nrPOD3=bofRLgWzFhRrzXMnrtZRr0XNjsw@mail.gmail.com> <DDD60A40-5095-4973-B90D-556F4AC0B1F1@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DDD60A40-5095-4973-B90D-556F4AC0B1F1@cisco.com>
From: Sergey SHpenkov <sergey.v.shpenkov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:19:35 +0300
Message-ID: <CAD4HJppxJF9W6jXFRPiFy_RyZvAUiNCayBPqpy2jqrX7wGGcvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: lsr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000398371059f757567"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/A_F_iY46GFzm6aNkomND63ujDYo>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question about OSPF (transit area routing loop)
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:21:53 -0000

 Acee,

Because ABR_1 creates SumLSA-4 for the ASBR not from the backbone area. The
cost of SumLSA-4 for ASBR is 300.

Thanks,
Sergey

вт, 25 февр. 2020 г. в 22:44, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>:

> Hi Sergey,
>
> I don’t see why RT_1 wouldn’t go through ABR_1 to get to the ASBR.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Sergey SHpenkov <
> sergey.v.shpenkov@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 2:38 PM
> *To: *"lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[Lsr] Question about OSPF (transit area routing loop)
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In section 16.3 of the OSPF RFC 2328 standard, it is stated that all ABR
> routers
>
> connected to a transit area are required to check the sumLSA contained
> within
>
> this area in order to possibly improve the intra-area and inter-area
> backbone routes
>
> for themselves.
>
>
> See the picture:
>
> The RT_1 and ABR_3 routers will use different paths to the ASBR router:
>
> ABR_3 -> RT_1 -> ABR_1 -> ASBR = cost 3
> RT_1 -> ABR_3 -> ABR_2 -> ASBR = cost 21
>
> route loop between RT_1 and ABR_3
>
> Please explain this situation
>
> Thanks,
> Sergey
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email