Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes

Acee Lindem <acee@CISCO.COM> Sat, 09 July 2005 17:15 UTC

Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DrIvY-0004m1-2W for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 13:15:44 -0400
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 NAA12787 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:15:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (209.119.0.2) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <17.010A02AA@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:15:42 -0400
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 78497122 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:15:36 -0400
Received: from 64.102.122.148 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:15:36 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2005 10:15:38 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,276,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="1129160:sNHT20379228"
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j69HFak6016411 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:15:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:15:37 -0400
Received: from [10.82.241.216] ([10.82.241.216]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:15:36 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <01LQC519TT6A003LOZ@omega7.wr.usgs.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2005 17:15:36.0630 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2868D60:01C584A9]
Message-ID: <42D00638.50108@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 13:15:36 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@CISCO.COM>
Subject: Re: Two queries on calculating AS external routes
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: <01LQC519TT6A003LOZ@omega7.wr.usgs.gov>
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Pat Murphy - (650)329-4044 wrote:

>Paresh,
>
>  
>
>>In my case below, what if the two LSAs are not quite
>>functoinally equivalent i.e what if the LSAs have the same
>>destination, same cost etc but have different non-zero
>>forwarding addresses ? What happens then ?  Do the same
>>tie-breaker rules apply or will it be implementation-dependent ?
>>    
>>
>
>The tie breaker rules are not applied. Here the installation 
>decision process is the same regardless of whether it is 
>comparing two Type 5 LSAs, or a Type 5 and a Type 7 LSA, or two 
>Type 7 LSAs. Whether or not both are installed depends on the 
>pruning done in step (c) as defined in RFC 2328 Section 16.4.1.
>  
>
Conceivably, you still could end up with LSAs with differing forwarding 
addresses of equal
cost and equivalent path preference for the prefix. I don't believe this 
case is covered. However,
since the forwarding address costs are equal, I don't think there should 
be any loops.

>Pat
>
>  
>