Re: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf

Fredrik Liljegren <fredrik.liljegren@ericsson.com> Tue, 21 April 2015 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <fredrik.liljegren@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2011AD0C0 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b17nlRmjBmBP for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCF5B1AD0A5 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79126d000004b89-45-55367b8ba31c
Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 57.6D.19337.B8B76355; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:32:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.101]) by ESESSHC012.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.54]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:32:11 +0200
From: Fredrik Liljegren <fredrik.liljegren@ericsson.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf
Thread-Index: AQHQfE96iuP9ShoS9ECeQCIzjny9b51XqBgA
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:32:10 +0000
Message-ID: <83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8FCC@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
References: <D15BC6B0.186EF%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D15BC6B0.186EF%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8FCCESESSMB105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW53tVmowfolFhaT385jtmi5d4/d gcljyu+NrB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mo4sv8SY8G7sop/Jz+zNjBeKe5i5OSQEDCR mLSxkxnCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwFFGiXXTO9khnCWMEot2trCDVLEJWEg83/AYrENEwEvixsQm sLiwgINEx7rT7BBxR4mm5XMYIWwjiTMNW8FsFgFVie0HO9hAbF4BX4l3c68wgdhCAtoSPXPa gHo5ODgFdCT2/wMbzyggK3H/+z0WEJtZQFzi1pP5TBCHCkgs2XMe6mhRiZeP/7FC2IoSH1/t Y4Soz5eY2DGHHWKVoMTJmU9YJjCKzEIyahaSsllIymYBXcEsoCmxfpc+RImixJTuh+wQtoZE 65y57MjiCxjZVzGKFqcWJ+WmGxnrpRZlJhcX5+fp5aWWbGIERtXBLb9VdzBefuN4iFGAg1GJ h1dhvWmoEGtiWXFl7iFGaQ4WJXFeO+NDIUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYHf/N cD9YyWC28W3q63CJGkUV7qmCs+2rHxfznvHadDB8UveDxvLGZ3fmZdv3TY0XXZB8dOVfPxaV 328zVm0pfhChzsT3/VuCBff57lWuH6vZ5vhUfnlx8qb6vJqy7/GdrYdC2M8s9At676t1UXaN Wn7Vt7sctXwafEy/g359UNYL/bvq9EcfJZbijERDLeai4kQAMpz6U4sCAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/eP1fGBvfsr8sOGIQuBuIR7kLalc>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:32:51 -0000

Hi!

Thanks for your answer. We thought about redistribute connected as well, but since we currently don’t have access to route maps to filter out the wanted networks (and absolutely not want to expose all internal networks) we thought the way to go would be to include the wanted ones as passive and it would work fine, but apparently not.

Then we will escalate the need for the filter mechanism and go for that solution instead.

Thanks again, much appreciated!

Regards
Fredrik

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
Sent: den 21 april 2015 18:23
To: Fredrik Liljegren; ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf

Hi Fredrik,
Note that passive interfaces are a non-standard protocol extension and are not subject to IETF specification. Having said that, you have misunderstood how the passive feature has been implemented by many vendors. The passive interface subnet will be advertised as a local stub network in the Router-LSA corresponding to the area in which they are configured. If you want to advertise these subnets as external routes you should not configure them as passive and should simply redistribute your connected routes.
Hope this helps,
Acee

From: Fredrik Liljegren <fredrik.liljegren@ericsson.com<mailto:fredrik.liljegren@ericsson.com>>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 9:03 AM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf


Hi!

I have a scenario where I run two OSPF instances (AS) on the same router, and intend to share some routing information between them. One instance attaches locally connected networks, and one instance facing the external world.

The locally connected networks are included into OSPF as passive networks, and are supposed to be redistributed into the “external” OSPF instance with redistribute OSPF. This does not work, and I can’t find any documentation regarding this use case. Other OSPF networks are redistributed as expected, but the passive networks seems to be considered as connected even though they are included into with the passive feature. Are passive networks to be considered as any other locally connected OSPF network when it comes to redistribute OSPF, or is there some difference in this regards? I thought they would be treated the same, and am trying to convince some designers that it is, but I better make sure first that it actually is the case or did I misunderstand the passive feature?

Thanks and regards
Fredrik