Re: [OSPF] Question on Virtual Link

[Richard Ogier <[e-mail]>]

I will attempt a different answer to your question, which may or may not
correctly address your concern.

> Here the assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface on 
> which OSPF packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find out 
> transit area id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I can’t 
> have virtual link end points having multiple paths, some are through 
> OSPF and some other through other protocols like static routes, in 
> this case OSPF packets can be received through the interfaces which 
> are not enabled with OSPF.


If you have a static route between two backbone routers,
it can be configured as a point-to-point link in OSPF (using tunnel
encapsulation). However, in this case, you would not need a virtual
link since you have a direct link between the two backbone routers.
Therefore, if I am correctly interpreting your concern, the answer
might be that you can achieve your goal using tunneling instead of
a virtual link.

Richard


Pradeep Shastry wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a question on virtual link. As per the RFC2328, under section 
> 8.2 (Receiving protocol packets)
>
> The Area ID specified in the header must either:
>
> (1) Match the Area ID of the receiving interface. In this
>
> case, the packet has been sent over a single hop………………
>
> (2) Indicate the backbone. In this case, the packet has
>
> been sent over a virtual link. The receiving router
>
> must be an area border router, and the Router ID
>
> specified in the packet (the source router) must be the
>
> other end of a configured virtual link. The receiving
>
> interface must also attach to the virtual link's
>
> configured Transit area. If all of these checks
>
> succeed, the packet is accepted and is from now on
>
> associated with the virtual link (and the backbone
>
> area)
>
> Here the assumption is that OSPF should be enabled on the interface on 
> which OSPF packet is received (In case of virtual link, to find out 
> transit area id). Is this is correct? If this is correct then I can’t 
> have virtual link end points having multiple paths, some are through 
> OSPF and some other through other protocols like static routes, in 
> this case OSPF packets can be received through the interfaces which 
> are not enabled with OSPF.
>
> Thanks and Regards
>
> -Pradeepa Shastry
>
> ***************************************************************************************
> This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from 
> HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address 
> is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any 
> way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, 
> reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended 
> recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, 
> please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>  
>
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf