Seeming contradiction on forwarding addresses?
Mike Fox <mjfox@US.IBM.COM> Mon, 13 October 2003 21:32 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 RAA00391 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:32:39 -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 <8.00C0B1CD@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:32:46 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 57779521 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0400
Received: from 32.97.110.130 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0400
Received: from westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.32]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h9DLWhE6103616 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:32:43 -0400
Received: from d03nm118.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.82]) by westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id h9DLWd66087310 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:32:41 -0600
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM118/03/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 10/13/2003 15:32:41
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-ID: <OFF265FDF3.3179C327-ON85256DBE.0074C84E-85256DBE.007586A6@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:32:36 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Mike Fox <mjfox@US.IBM.COM>
Subject: Seeming contradiction on forwarding addresses?
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
RFC 2328 says, in section 12.4.4.1 regarding forwarding addresses in external LSAs: > Note that when the forwarding address field is non- > zero, it should point to a router belonging to > another Autonomous System. But then when discussing calculation of external routes in section 16.4 it says: > If the forwarding address is non-zero, look up the > forwarding address in the routing table.[24] The matching > routing table entry must specify an intra-area or inter-area > path; if no such path exists, do nothing with the LSA and > consider the next in the list. So the RFC says that a forwarding address should be to an AS external address, but no one can use an external LSA if the only way to reach the forwarding address is via an AS External route? Footnote 24 re-emphasizes that point also. Is there something I am missing here? Mike ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Enterprise Network Solutions ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Research Triangle Park, NC USA