Re: NSSA summarization

"Pat Murphy - (650)329-4044" <> Tue, 16 August 2005 15:15 UTC

Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E53AN-0008U0-8x for; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:15:51 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17400 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:15:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <>; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:15:45 -0400
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 82771424 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:15:43 -0400
Received: from by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:15:34 -0400
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-23 #41392) id <> for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:18:55 -0700
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: "Pat Murphy - (650)329-4044" <>
Subject: Re: NSSA summarization
Precedence: list

>Suppose I am summarizing type-7 LSAs.  In this case while generating 
>type-5 lsa we follow section 4.1 of rfc 1587,
>What happens if ospf database has one LSA with LS-Id matches to my 
>summary-address range and some LSAs with LS-Id falling under 
>summary-address range.  Then in this case what type of metric or 
>path-type we should set in the type-5 lsa?

What Sujay suggests is clearly described in RFC 3101 Section 3.2, 

(3) Else the Type-7 LSA must be aggregated by the most specific
    Type-7 address range that subsumes it.  If this Type-7 address
    range has the same [address,mask] pair as the LSA's network
    and no other translatable Type-7 LSA with a different network
    best matches this range, then flag the LSA as not contained in
    any explicitly configured Type-7 address range and process the
    LSA as described in step (2).  Otherwise compute the path type
    and metric for this Type-7 address range as described below...

RFC 3101 obsoletes RFC 1587.