Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Sun, 18 June 2017 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247F91294C4 for <>; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2J76kVNzGUeL for <>; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02004129482 for <>; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=20917; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497811069; x=1499020669; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=4LrxCpUBmG/Khsb7/WTIlZLrjwBb91TrSNiP46Ou3mk=; b=N2LNlo5yA/7zC1TQnyIMxvFLl7vh8W+MgGNzYVkPWUdtZQiYge6P+9o1 ZkkChtHDIg2YNzKRpDF35A2yu6gjaGia9jhXTqP53wP/MLMxo3SAq4VIe 4GytAJL/h8iCChhkqXUzbRUqe5bKT6rSCHMC/edfiM6Je9xrMC0Xd969J E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,357,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="442069981"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Jun 2017 18:37:48 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5IIbl7p013424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:37:47 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 14:37:46 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 14:37:46 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <>, OSPF WG List <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
Thread-Index: AQHS6GH6q/Cb2aEok0aI9cREH6X2Mg==
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:37:46 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D56C3D71B5516aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 18:37:52 -0000

Hi –  I encouraged Balaji to post to the list is that I think many implementations have ignored #3. I know that I changed the IBM implementation to compute ECMP routes to multiple ASBRs and had the Redback implementation do this from the start. Consequently, we’d like to solicit input as to what other implementations do. If we can reach consensus on this, we could issue an Errata to make this optional.


From: OSPF <<>> on behalf of "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <<>>
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:13 AM
To: OSPF WG List <<>>
Subject: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification

Hi all,

When the metrics are same, RFC 3101 specifies the preference for NSSA/External routes as follows.
In the section 2.5<> Calculating Type-7 AS External Routes - 2.5.6.(e), it says..

          (e) If the current LSA is functionally the same as an
              installed LSA (i.e., same destination, cost and non-zero
              forwarding address) then apply the following priorities in
              deciding which LSA is preferred:

                 1. A Type-7 LSA with the P-bit set.

                 2. A Type-5 LSA.

                 3. The LSA with the higher router ID.

Points 1 and 2 are clear..

However Point 3 specifies preference of an LSA with a higher router ID. Why is it so?

-          Should we not install ECMP paths in this case?

-          Is point 3 actually intended for NSSA translators to prefer a Type 7 LSA which needs to be used for translation to Type 5?

Considering the above 2 points, I guess point 3 needs to be modified in the RFC to probably say..

                    3. Preference is same, install ECMP paths.
                       Additionally if the router is an NSSA translator, prefer the LSA with higher router ID for Type 7-Type 5 translation.

Please let know any views/comments on the same.