Re: Question about Type2 redistribution in to OSPF
Nikhil Sama <nikhil@PACKETDESIGN.COM> Wed, 21 August 2002 20:25 UTC
Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24413 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:25:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <19.006E40A1@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:27:13 -0400
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 82290 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:27:13 -0400
Received: from 65.192.41.10 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0f) with TCP; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:17:13 -0400
Received: from dhcp-168-0-85.packetdesign.com (dhcp-168-0-85.packetdesign.com [192.168.0.85]) by mailman.packetdesign.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7LKHBx92443 for <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:17:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nikhil@packetdesign.com)
References: <3D63DA29.E06CECDF@net.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-OJLVQclZ4rLqyTaW7PHk"
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1029961010.1459.85.camel@dhcp-168-0-85.packetdesign.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:16:49 -0700
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: Nikhil Sama <nikhil@PACKETDESIGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Question about Type2 redistribution in to OSPF
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: <3D63DA29.E06CECDF@net.com>
Precedence: list
R1 will have a cost of 5 to the type-2 external route mentioned.
The reason is, as you mentioned ..
"Type 2 metrics are assumed to be larger than the cost of any intra-AS
path."
If there was another type-2 external route available to the same
destination prefix via another internal ASBR/Next-Hop, then your
decision on which route to pick should be independent of your cost to
the different internal next-hop's but based solely on the type 2
metrics.
This would not "necessarily" be the case had you added the internal
cost(of getting to the next-hop) to the type-2 metric.
Hope this helps !
/ns
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 11:21, Mani Devarajan wrote:
RFC 2328:
=========
Section - 12.4.4. AS-external-LSAs
Type 2 metrics are assumed to be larger than
the cost of any intra-AS path.
In one other document I read ,it says that for type 2
it will be always external cost irrespective of inter
area cost.
type 2
----- ----- -----
| | | | | |
| R1 | | R2 | |ASBR |
| | | | | |
----- ----- -----
|10 | |10 | |
----- ------ ----|
| External Network
|
If ASBR redistributes route for external network at a
cost of 5, R1 will have a route to external network
with cost == 5 or cost > 10.
Thanks in advance,
<Mani
- Question about Type2 redistribution in to OSPF Mani Devarajan
- Re: Question about Type2 redistribution in to OSPF Nikhil Sama
- Re: Question about Type2 redistribution in to OSPF Nikhil Sama
- Re: Question about Type2 redistribution in to OSPF Acee Lindem