Re: NSSA NP option bit clarification

"Pat Murphy - (650)329-4044" <pmurphy@omega7.wr.usgs.gov> Thu, 12 June 2003 21:40 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 RAA27875 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:40:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <19.00A11548@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:40:08 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 45456295 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:40:06 -0400
Received: from 130.118.4.3 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:40:05 -0400
Received: from omega7.wr.usgs.gov by omega7.wr.usgs.gov (PMDF V6.0-24 #41392) id <01KX0E8NHR1O8WY6ZE@omega7.wr.usgs.gov> for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-VMS-To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
X-VMS-Cc: PMURPHY
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <01KX0E8NHR1Q8WY6ZE@omega7.wr.usgs.gov>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:40:04 -0700
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: "Pat Murphy - (650)329-4044" <pmurphy@omega7.wr.usgs.gov>
Subject: Re: NSSA NP option bit clarification
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list

I am inclined to agree with Acee, namely

>From a position of hindsight, there should be three separate options
>definitions: one for LSA options, one for hello options, and one for
>DD options. Or, better yet, the options should be stored in the neighbor
>structure during hello processing and not even included in the DD packet.

Early on I questioned this RFC 1587 text

      N-bit:  The N-bit describes the the router's NSSA
              capability.  The N-bit is used only in Hello
              packets and ensures that all members of an NSSA
              agree on that area's configuration.

Late in the game of getting RFC 3101 published it stopped being an issue
with me. I was not around when this text was written this way and can't
shed any light on the exact intentions of Rob and Vince. My guess is they
were simply trying to distinguish the use of this bit in the Hello Packet
versus its use in the Type-7 LSA option field, and that it had nothing at
all to do with how the bit was used in the DD packet.  I suppose its too
late now to make this text a little clearer. I do recommend that you don't
read too much into it.

Pat