Two queries on calculating AS external routes
Paresh Khatri <pkhatri@AAPT.COM.AU> Tue, 28 June 2005 00:53 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 UAA18735 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:53:50 -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 <6.0109087D@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:53:49 -0400
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 77093271 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:53:47 -0400
Received: from 209.119.0.160 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0l) with TCP; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:53:47 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lists.state.gov) by almond.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <6.008E3E45@almond.ease.lsoft.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:53:47 -0400
Message-ID: <LISTSERV%200506272053385830.EE44@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:53:38 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Paresh Khatri <pkhatri@AAPT.COM.AU>
Subject: Two queries on calculating AS external routes
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Hi all, I've got a couple of queries on Section 16.4 of RFC2328 that I hope someone can help me with. 1) When determining that preferred routing table entry for the ASBR in step (4), what happens if we end up with two equal-cost intra-area routes (for the same area) to the ASBR (this is after all the pruning from 16.4.1 etc) ? Will both routes be installed in the routing table ? 2) Looking at step (6) now. If we have two, and only two, paths to a destination N, with the following characteristics: - same route-type (say, Type 2 external) - same type-2 metric - both are intra-area routes but for different non-backbone areas ( so we still end up with 2 paths after 16.4.1) - the intra-area distance to the ASBR is the same for both paths Will both paths be installed in the routing table ? If so, would that not contradict section 16.8, which states that all equal-cost paths for a route should be associated with the same area ? All responses appreciated. Cheers, Paresh Khatri
- Two queries on calculating AS external routes Paresh Khatri
- Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes Acee Lindem
- Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes Paresh Khatri
- Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes Acee Lindem
- Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes Paresh Khatri
- Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes Paresh Khatri
- Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes Pat Murphy - (650)329-4044
- Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes Acee Lindem
- Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes Paresh Khatri