Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue

Santosh Esale <s.esale@GMAIL.COM> Sat, 14 May 2005 15:11 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 LAA10204 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Sat, 14 May 2005 11:11:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (209.119.0.2) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <12.01047059@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Sat, 14 May 2005 11:11:49 -0400
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.3) with spool id 70649500 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Sat, 14 May 2005 11:11:48 -0400
Received: from 64.233.184.199 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0l) with TCP; Sat, 14 May 2005 11:11:48 -0400
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so1384364wri for <OSPF@peach.ease.lsoft.com>; Sat, 14 May 2005 08:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=H/3XR9akeFHE2cN+6pI0jY4zYtHztetnkajgwxRd2DL8LyrTBLBchLdkb+pMD8WGmTv3s0nZRWZ0+1avKz7FntWcjs4ciaSRuRyhNcx09xEQIMX0CIHcJKIGu2jb3GEge/Cmk+Pq+2jhojZ8Gh4lt3Zrd7ol44LFnxLZwR43KOA=
Received: by 10.54.26.2 with SMTP id 2mr2466655wrz; Sat, 14 May 2005 08:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.13.19 with HTTP; Sat, 14 May 2005 08:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <c4bf85a2050514081066c7ef0a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 20:40:58 +0530
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Santosh Esale <s.esale@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi guys,
           Mine topology is as below-

R1----Area 1 ------R2--------Backbone Area------R3

Initially Area 1 was type-5 capabale area and i was redistributing RIP
routes into area 1 on R1, so R2 and R3 have type-5 LSAs for all the
RIP routes.Now i changed
Area 1 to NSSA , So R1 is now orginating type-7 LSAs for all the RIP
routes into area 1 with P-bit set.

Now mine question is should R2 -

 1.     Prefer type 7 LSA over type-5 .
Convert type-7 LSA into type-5 LSA  and flood into backbone, which
aleardy have  type-5 LSAs for the same netwroks earlier orginated by
R1(not yet flushed as it will remain in backbone for MAX AGE)
(According to RFC 3101. section 2.5 stp 6 (e) ).

Disadvantage: The LSP database size will be doubled till MAX AGE time.
Advantage : simplicity

2. Prefer type-5 over type-7 .
Use type-5 LSA for calculating external routes till type-5 LSAs
advertised by R1 exists in backbone(MAX Age) , and once type is
flushed because of MAX age , USE type -7 now to calculate external
routes , and translate at this point from type-7 to type-5(RFC 1587
3.5 step 5)

Advantage : LSP database size is small.
Disadvantage: bit complex,but not much.

3. or its Implementations Specific.

Thanks in Advance


-- 
Santosh Esale

Member - Technical Staff

Riverstone Networks India Pvt. Ltd.

Email: sesale@riverstonenet.com