Re: [Lsr] some doubts about RFC3101

meicong <meicong@huawei.com> Fri, 06 December 2019 01:40 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 68CDA12004D for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:40:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 e5_nWKrQsAC7 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:40:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 0A5C812004C for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:40:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8AE89D0BCA1960AA07A6 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 01:40:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 01:40:44 +0000
Received: from DGGEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.52]) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::89ed:853e:30a9:2a79%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:40:37 +0800
From: meicong <meicong@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] some doubts about RFC3101
Thread-Index: AdWr1aBbNT84SnIJSBmHgKuw0loCOA==
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 01:40:37 +0000
Message-ID: <C45D89487DC65947BCBD4149DD0967C3341AA157@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_C45D89487DC65947BCBD4149DD0967C3341AA157DGGEML503MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/okKXWoqVQPgyg2J9v2D85IYnfHc>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 01:40:51 -0000

Hi Acee,
Thanks for your answer.
In the example,
If the type-5 lsa is originated by the ASBR that in the normal area,
the other router in the normal area will use the type-5 lsa,
for the ASBR is reachable in the normal area,
and there is (128.185.1.0, 0xffffff00) inter-area route that be orignated by the abr in routing table of  other router,
and the calculated result for the type-5 lsa is path to the abr,
but there is no path on the abr, because the route (128.185.1.0, 0xffffff00) is intra-route of Nssa area on the abr.
In the scenario, the fowarding address is advertised by differnet router in different capable area with different netmask.
It maybe fall under a configed error, but the result of the calculate result seems wrong.
What is your opinion for it?
Regards

发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2019年12月5日 20:40
收件人: meicong <meicong@huawei.com>om>; lsr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] some doubts about RFC3101

Hi Meicong,

From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of meicong <meicong@huawei.com<mailto:meicong@huawei.com>>
Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 4:48 AM
To: "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-nssa-update@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-nssa-update@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-nssa-update@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-nssa-update@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Lsr] some doubts about RFC3101


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?

The short answer is no. The OSPF AS-External LSA should not be used since the forwarding address is not reachable through a normal area. As one would expect, the route lookup is always a longest prefix lookup. Note that having NSSA routes implies that the computing OSPF router is an ABR with both normal and NSSA area(s). One would expect that prefix being computed would also have a corresponding OSPF NSSA LSA that would satisfy the reachability check. If not, something in the OSPF routing design is broken.

Hope this helps,
Acee



Regards