Re: [OSPF] Question on Virtual Link

Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com> Wed, 04 June 2008 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ospf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A8D3A69BD; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D7F3A69BD for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q8-szgZ9pKbg for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BF83A699E for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F154497B3; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01142-05; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6???1] (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FCA4497B1; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <003301c8c5ff$216a3500$3905120a@china.huawei.com>
References: <003301c8c5ff$216a3500$3905120a@china.huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Message-Id: <268E208B-2B08-4E83-B80A-CDFCDBA71333@redback.com>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:28:33 -0400
To: Pradeep Shastry <pshastry@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
Cc: 'OSPF List' <ospf@ietf.org>, tuby@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Question on Virtual Link
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0102015742=="
Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Pradeep,

On Jun 4, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Pradeep Shastry wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a question on virtual link. As per the RFC2328, under  
> section 8.2 (Receiving protocol packets)
>
>
>
> The Area ID specified in the header must either:
>
>             (1) Match the Area ID of the receiving interface.  In this
>
>                 case, the packet has been sent over a single hop………………
>
>
>
>         (2) Indicate the backbone.  In this case, the packet has
>
>                 been sent over a virtual link.  The receiving router
>
>                 must be an area border router, and the Router ID
>
>                 specified in the packet (the source router) must be  
> the
>
>                 other end of a configured virtual link.  The receiving
>
>                 interface must also attach to the virtual link's
>
>                 configured Transit area.  If all of these checks
>
>                 succeed, the packet is accepted and is from now on
>
>                 associated with the virtual link (and the backbone
>
>                 area)
>
>
>
> Here the assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface  
> on which OSPF packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find  
> out transit area id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I  
> can’t have virtual link end points having multiple paths, some are  
> through OSPF and some other through other protocols like static  
> routes, in this case OSPF packets can be received through the  
> interfaces which are not enabled with OSPF.
>

That is correct. A virtual link through an OSPF transit area will  
only include intra-area paths within that transit area.

Acee


>
>
> Thanks and Regards
>
> -Pradeepa Shastry
>
> ********************************************************************** 
> *****************
> This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from  
> HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose  
> address is listed above. Any use of the information contained  
> herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial  
> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than  
> the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail  
> in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately  
> and delete it!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf