Re: doubt in Figure 5 of RFC 2328
Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM> Tue, 24 June 2003 12:55 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 IAA14219 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:55:50 -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 <21.00A2DD7A@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 8:55:50 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 46453823 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:55:49 -0400
Received: from 155.53.12.9 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:55:44 -0400
Received: from redback.com (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712B57D6CA7 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3EF74F8A.22F92D39@net.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3EF84952.40803@redback.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:51:30 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM>
Subject: Re: doubt in Figure 5 of RFC 2328
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mani Devarajan wrote: > Hi all, > > In the figure 5 of rfc 2328 "The SPF tree for Router RT6", > there is an extra node between N9 and RT9. > > Does that node mean something,or it has been added intentionally. > > | | > N9 o o N7 > /| > / | > N11 RT9 / |RT12 > o--------o-------o o--------o H1 > 3 | 10 > |2 > | > o N10 Hi Mani, The unlabeled "o" has no significance in the OSPF topology. If we ever respin RFC 2328 it would be better if it were removed. Thanks, -- Acee
- doubt in Figure 5 of RFC 2328 Mani Devarajan
- Re: doubt in Figure 5 of RFC 2328 Acee Lindem