"Panetta, Chris" <Chris.Panetta@SCWA.com> Fri, 28 April 2017 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <Chris.Panetta@SCWA.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB968129B02 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.393
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.506] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dM0mrn1nH8K9 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from E2K10.corp.scwa.com (454a4184.cst.lightpath.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32FD612EAE2 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from E2K10.corp.scwa.com ([::1]) by E2K10.corp.scwa.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:36:15 -0400
From: "Panetta, Chris" <Chris.Panetta@SCWA.com>
To: "'ospf@ietf.org'" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: OSPF RFC 2328
Thread-Index: AdLARe8gwYrOETcaQkGCs5aNz6yGWw==
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:36:14 +0000
Message-ID: <2073F86D6AC9C649BB19555CEBD4524807E05D2E@E2K10.corp.scwa.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_2073F86D6AC9C649BB19555CEBD4524807E05D2EE2K10corpscwaco_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/NUKZ17i-xwiD0_WAAEcLK4FR8uQ>
Subject: [OSPF] OSPF RFC 2328
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:39:49 -0000


I was referred over to this group from secretariat@ietf.org. I just have a general question in regards to RFC 2328 or more specifically devices within my network that are clearly not following procedure. I guess I am also trying to get more of an understanding of how a company would establish itself as being a provider of a routing device. I am currently in discussions with a company that has provided us with the ability to perform OSPF within our company. We are running into an issue though where it seems as if OSPF is NOT following the RFC 2328 procedure. What's happening is the device is believing itself to have higher router ID than the DR/ BDR when the DR / BDR is already established. The DR has a priority of 110 the BDR has priority 105 and the device in question has a priority of 1. For a company to even say that they can provide RIP / OSPF / BGP on their devices do they have to adhere to IETF RFCs? Is that checked at all by the IETF a product is performing per RFC?

Christopher Panetta
Network Administrator
Suffolk County Water Authority
4060 Sunrise Hwy
Oakdale, New York 11769
D   631-563-0332
M  631-338-6081