ospf-tunnel-adjacency-00.txt

Vivek Dubey <vivek_ospf@REDIFFMAIL.COM> Sat, 21 June 2003 09:37 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Next_1056188232---0-203.199.83.247-24238"
Message-ID: <20030621093712.24242.qmail@mailweb34.rediffmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 09:37:12 -0000
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Vivek Dubey <vivek_ospf@REDIFFMAIL.COM>
Subject: ospf-tunnel-adjacency-00.txt
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list

Hi,

1)Section 2 and Section 4
--------------------------
Data packet forwarding between the two ABRs is different from a
VL in that the packets are tunneled if the TA path spans multiple hops.
This removes the requirement for routers internal to the transit area
to have the TA area's unsummarised intra-area routes.

Why was tunneling chosen over this requirement ?
Any specific advantage?

2)Section 5
-----------
TA is announced as an unnumbered point-to-point link

If TA is unnumbered point to point why Link Data is not
"interface's MIB-II ifIndex value"

On a hindsight "why was virtual link itself described
as unnumbered point to point?"
Could have been numbered point to point ??
Any specific advantage because of that ?

3)Section 10
------------
If there is not at least one IP address belonging to
Transit area or TTA and the virtual link or TA is configured, a
router could advertise any of its attached IP address as a stub link
(Link ID set to the router's own IP interface address, Link Data set
to the mask 0xffffffff) to the transit area.

Not very clear? Why was this required?

thanks,
vivek

http://www.herohonda.com/karizma?rediffmail" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">

http://ads.rediff.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/www.rediffmail.com/inbox.htm@Bottom" border="0">

ospf-tunnel-adjacency-00.txt Vivek Dubey
Re: ospf-tunnel-adjacency-00.txt Sina Mirtorabi