Re: description of p2p link in r-LSA
"Manral, Vishwas" <VishwasM@NETPLANE.COM> Mon, 02 September 2002 09:38 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 FAA17663 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 05:38:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <17.006FBF50@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 5:39:44 -0400
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 129832 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 05:39:44 -0400
Received: from 12.27.183.253 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0f) with TCP; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 05:39:43 -0400
Received: by XOVER.dedham.mindspeed.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <RQ2V0PWG>; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 05:39:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Message-ID: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A328791504@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 05:42:06 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: "Manral, Vishwas" <VishwasM@NETPLANE.COM>
Subject: Re: description of p2p link in r-LSA
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Hi Zhongjie Li, 1) The few implementations I know of use option 2. 2) No, there should be no interoperabilty concerns/problems if the two ends use different options. However in that case we would have a host route(/32) as well as a network route. Also check the link http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind9908&L=OSPF&P=R3243&I= -3. A similar discussion was on the list a few days back too. Thanks, Vishwas -----Original Message----- From: Li Zhongjie [mailto:lzj@CSNET1.CS.TSINGHUA.EDU.CN] Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 9:36 AM To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM Subject: description of p2p link in r-LSA Hi, For a numbered point-to-point link, a router has two options to declare a stub link <link id,link data>: 1) <subnet number, subnet mask> 2) <endpoint ip address, all 1's mask> as decribed in RFC2328 section 12.4.1.1 page 130. Two questions to ask: 1) what is the mostly widely used option on the current Internet? 2) I think different routers in an OSPF area can use different options without causing any problems, right? --- Best Regards, Zhongjie Li ******************************************************************** * Zhongjie Li * * Ph.D candidate, Department of Computer Science & Technology * * Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, P.R.China * * Tel: +86+10-62788109 Fax: +86+10-62788109 * * Email: lzj@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn * ********************************************************************
- description of p2p link in r-LSA Li Zhongjie
- Re: description of p2p link in r-LSA Manral, Vishwas
- Re: description of p2p link in r-LSA Acee Lindem
- Re: description of p2p link in r-LSA Manral, Vishwas