Re: Equal-cost path

Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@JUNIPER.NET> Wed, 13 April 2005 00:12 UTC

References: <OF126B0677.37EA48FE-ONC2256FDF.003D24CD@ecitele.com> <20050412154007.R19808@kummer.juniper.net> <20050413.080109.01294295.yasu@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-ID: <20050412164915.J19808@kummer.juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:12:58 -0700
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@JUNIPER.NET>
Subject: Re: Equal-cost path
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: <20050413.080109.01294295.yasu@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Precedence: list

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Yasuhiro Ohara wrote:

> Ahahaha,
> what are you talking about Kireeti !? ;p)

Four legs good, two legs better, one path best.

> The correct answer would be "It's an implementation specific issue".
...
> Whichever the path is selected by the router whole OSPF domain will
> work fine (in terms of issue regarding routing loops).

I think we're saying the same thing, just using different words.
But you said it somewhat more clearly.

Kireeti.
-------

Equal-cost path Ilan Bercovich
Re: Equal-cost path Kireeti Kompella
Re: Equal-cost path Yasuhiro Ohara
Re: Equal-cost path Kireeti Kompella
Re: Equal-cost path Naidu, Venkata
Re: Equal-cost path Dave Katz
Re: Equal-cost path Naidu, Venkata
Re: Equal-cost path Dave Katz
Re: Equal-cost path Erblichs