Re: doubt in Figure 5 of RFC 2328

Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM> Tue, 24 June 2003 12:55 UTC

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
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