[Lsr] some doubts about RFC3101

meicong <meicong@huawei.com> Thu, 05 December 2019 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <meicong@huawei.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 8B6071200F1 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:26:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 AV_s-KXpzaUj for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:26:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 945DC120052 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.57]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CE7CDC9C71886EACF474 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:26:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from DGGEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.52]) by DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::fca6:7568:4ee3:c776%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:26:04 +0800
From: meicong <meicong@huawei.com>
To: "lsr@ietfa.amsl.com" <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>
Thread-Topic: some doubts about RFC3101
Thread-Index: AdWrTBkbTX8+UEpkQbq0Ph2L6BQYyAAAdAEQ
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:26:03 +0000
Message-ID: <C45D89487DC65947BCBD4149DD0967C3341A99F4@DGGEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.190.81]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C45D89487DC65947BCBD4149DD0967C3341A99F4DGGEML503MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/E7NRTZ6FziXAKkT9s-L8sAS29I0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 01:35:14 -0800
Subject: [Lsr] some doubts about RFC3101
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 09:27:59 -0000

Hi All,
Could you please provide clarification for following section 2.5.(3) in rfc3101.

          If the forwarding address is non-zero look up the forwarding
          address in the routing table.  For a Type-5 LSA the matching
          routing table entry must specify an intra-area or inter-area
          path through a Type-5 capable area.  For a Type-7 LSA the
          matching routing table entry must specify an intra-area path
          through the LSA's originating NSSA.  If no such path exists
          then do nothing with this LSA and consider the next in the
          list.
          [NSSA]

In the section, the matching routing table entry of the forwarding address is limited("an intra-area or inter-area path through a Type-5 capable area" or "an intra-area path through the LSA's originating NSSA").
If the best matching routing table entry for the forwarding address does not match the limited, the secondory best matching routing table entry should be find or not?

e.g., the forwarding address of a Type-5 LSA is 128.185.1.1,
and there are two routing table entry int the routing table on the abr,
(128.185.1.0, 0xffffff00) intra-area route of the NSSA area,
(128.185.0.0, 0xffff0000) intra-area route of the normal area(Type-5 capable area),
The path of the forwarding address should be consider as exist or not?

Regards