Re: about Area Splitting

"Li, Ke Qin (Peter)" <keqinli@LUCENT.COM> Tue, 09 December 2003 07:49 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 CAA15490 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 02:49:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <4.00C6CDF4@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 2:49:48 -0500
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 63610281 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 02:49:48 -0500
Received: from 192.11.222.163 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 02:49:48 -0500
Received: from ci0026exch001u.wins.lucent.com (h135-252-18-18.lucent.com [135.252.18.18]) by ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hB97nh020629 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 01:49:43 -0600 (CST)
Received: by CI0026EXCH001U with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <WWPTJPR6>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:49:41 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Message-ID: <31C0F08B0D18D511ACC800508BAE7B4707F47DEB@CI0026EXCH001U>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:49:40 +0800
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: "Li, Ke Qin (Peter)" <keqinli@LUCENT.COM>
Subject: Re: about Area Splitting
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list

Hi,

Thank you for your reply.

Let's still use the notations in that draft. In my understanding, when a
packet destined to y reaches a, a will discard the packet, and reply an ICMP
Destination Unreachable message. But this will not change the routing table
of c. C will keep sending packets to a.

What does "reject route" mean? And what does "coincide with computed
intra-area routes" mean? Do you mean that because m is not equal to x, a
reject route corresponding to m-x will be installed?

Thank you.

Keqin Li

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee@REDBACK.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:38
> To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
> Subject: Re: about Area Splitting
>
>
>
> Hi Kegin,
>
> The traffic should result in an ICMP reject since any deployable
> implementation will install a reject route corresponding
> to its active area ranges that do not coincide with computed
> intra-area
> routes. RFC 2328 doesn't state this explicitly but
> it is implied by section 3.5 (it says a single route may be advertised
> for an area range - this implies a route exists).
>
> I'm not sure how serious the problem is since there haven't been that
> many complaints. However, as
> Sina points out, the proposed Tunnel Adjacency (TA) extension can be
> used to repair a partitioned
> non-backbone area.
>
>
>