[OSPF] OSPF multiple interfaces to the same subnet
Xi R Chen <chenxibj@cn.ibm.com> Thu, 09 February 2012 04:02 UTC
Return-Path: <chenxibj@cn.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05AD121F8542 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:02:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.957
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.041, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ktyyIloF6HEV for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:02:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (e23smtp04.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99EFF21F8540 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:02:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <ospf@ietf.org> from <chenxibj@cn.ibm.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:46:53 +1000
Received: from d23relay04.au.ibm.com (202.81.31.246) by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (202.81.31.210) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:46:50 +1000
Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q193v9p43211476 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:57:11 +1100
Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q1942AJi006286 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:02:10 +1100
Received: from d23m0010.cn.ibm.com (d23m0010.cn.ibm.com [9.181.2.72]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q194297a006277 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:02:09 +1100
X-KeepSent: 90436F6E:55DADC18-4825799F:00152A35; type=4; name=$KeepSent
To: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010
Message-ID: <OF90436F6E.55DADC18-ON4825799F.00152A35-4825799F.0016351C@cn.ibm.com>
From: Xi R Chen <chenxibj@cn.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:01:16 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D23M0010/23/M/IBM(Release 8.5.1FP5HF337 | September 15, 2011) at 09/02/2012 12:01:16
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="0__=C7BBF30CDF86ACA58f9e8a93df938690918cC7BBF30CDF86ACA5"
Content-Disposition: inline
x-cbid: 12020817-9264-0000-0000-000000CB2039
Subject: [OSPF] OSPF multiple interfaces to the same subnet
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:16:50 -0000
Hi ------------------------------ | | | eth1 eth2 | ------------------------------- | | | | -------------|----------------- | eth3 | | | ------------------------------ Did anyone test this scenario before. Assuming both eth1 and eth2 connect to eth3, eth1 eth2 and eth3 are in the same area and the same subnet (Let's say 192.168.2.0/24). From the RFC, both eth1 and eth2 are considered together to DR election cause they have same router ID. Then assuming eth2 is DR, eth3 is BDR. My qustion is: 1. What is status of eth1? Does eth1 have neighbors or adjacencies? Some documents say, in this case, all inbound traffic for the RTA will use only one interface out of eth1 or eth2. the inbound traffic to RTA is not load balanced across the interfaces. 2. The next question is, if one link fails (Let's say the link between eth2 and eth3 fails, but the interface is still active ), can the routers detect that and switch the route to ETH1? I tested it on some routers, it can not switch the route to eth1. It will set eth2 and eth3 as two separate DR, after link fails. And the status of eth1 is always backup. Which means, if I deactive eth2 (the primary interface), eth1 will turn to primary interface, establish neighborship and update the routing table. Otherwise, eth1 will always keep the backup status and not have any neighbor or adjacencies. Best Regards Chen Xi (陈希) Developer, TCP/IP on IBM i IBM China System & Technology Lab in Beijing Notes: Xi R Chen/China/IBM E-mail: chenxibj@cn.ibm.com Tel:(010)82450844 Address:28,Zhong Guan Cun Software Park,No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China 100193 地址:北京市海淀区东北旺西路8号,中关村软件园28号楼 邮编:100193