Re: RFC 2370 Update and a Proposed Change to Stub Area Behavior

[Russ White <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


First, I'll comment that I believe stub areas are still useful....

> If an application requires an area flooding scope, typically its LSA will
> have the U-bit set so that the LSA be flooded as if it was understood and
> avoiding the requirement that all routers understand the new LSA. With the
> current specification in 2740, we cannot define new LSA with area flooding
> scope for Stub / NSSA unless the U-bit is clear therefore this cause two
> issues
> 
> - We cannot have incremental deployment for a given application
> - We would be defining two LS type for the same application as U-bit will be
> set for regular areas and U-bit will be clear for Stub/ NSSA where all
> routers have to understand the new LSA

Correct.

I do see some merit in suggesting that an implemenation MAY filter
unknowns at a stub area ABR, as long as the network implementor is
willing to accept the possible negative consequences from this action.

:-)

Russ

- -- 
[e-mail] CCIE <>< Grace Alone



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.2 (Build 2424)

iQA/AwUBQwEJDBEdu7FIVPTkEQK5YQCffvjVDjTfbSjZq/NAxSpqgMG7RfQAoLOK
c+Q2GrKYlQwY2zd1P3sfdDqD
=hjsk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----