Re: Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue
Santosh Esale <s.esale@GMAIL.COM> Mon, 16 May 2005 10:43 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 GAA23099 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Mon, 16 May 2005 06:43:23 -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 <3.010495D4@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Mon, 16 May 2005 6:43:25 -0400
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.3) with spool id 70891796 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Mon, 16 May 2005 06:43:24 -0400
Received: from 64.233.184.192 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0l) with TCP; Mon, 16 May 2005 06:43:24 -0400
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so1841243wri for <OSPF@peach.ease.lsoft.com>; Mon, 16 May 2005 03:43:23 -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:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dL1aD9GdwzArK1w72TwxezTcj74yX4CJ1upXp/YHvcKVSyUecFW/zo+krxm1eajhZZz4u9zmPK68y9SKWnzPKiwGQ11uxm92YMpOhdN+RTFOTcoSLnqcjwx7osA2vl0wM0D0L1gJduImMDPYTdHw43HimYrL746qsjTstnMqWew=
Received: by 10.54.24.48 with SMTP id 48mr3610588wrx; Mon, 16 May 2005 03:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.13.19 with HTTP; Mon, 16 May 2005 03:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <c4bf85a2050514081066c7ef0a@mail.gmail.com> <428874E3.1020408@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <c4bf85a20505160343ab75063@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:13:23 +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: Re: Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: <428874E3.1020408@cisco.com>
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Acee,
U mean i should check whether the ASBR path is via type-5
capable area, and if its not USE NSSA external lsa for calculation and
do the type-7 to type-5 conversion immediately.
I do agree with this...but we are doubling the LSP database size, how
to slove it?
Thanks
Santosh
On 5/16/05, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Santosh,
>
> Whether or not R1 purges its AS-external-LSAs prior to area 1 being
> coverted from a regular area to an NSSA is implementation specific.
> However, the
> timing of the conversion may be such that R1 is unable to purge them
> from the
> OSPF routing domain. In all cases, R1 should immediately originate
> NSSA-LSAs
> (type-7s) for redistributed routes. When R2 computes its external/NSSA
> routes
> it should not use R1's AS-external-LSA since its path to the ASBR is not
> through
> a regular area (see section 2.5 in RFC 3101).
>
> Hope this helps,
> Acee
>
> Santosh Esale wrote:
>
> >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
- Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue Santosh Esale
- Re: Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue sujay
- Re: Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue Acee Lindem
- Re: Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue Santosh Esale
- Re: Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue Acee Lindem
- Re: Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue Santosh Esale
- Re: Type-7 to Type-5 translation issue Pat Murphy - (650)329-4044
- OSPF : Summarization of type-7 lsa's tajay