IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: OSPF sham link

Acee Lindem <acee@CISCO.COM> Thu, 29 September 2005 03:04 UTC

Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKoj4-0002Ev-6j for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:04:50 -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 XAA00523 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:04:47 -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 <23.010FEAC4@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:04:46 -0400
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 86753902 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:03:13 -0400
Received: from 171.71.176.70 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:03:10 -0400
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2005 20:03:10 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,155,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="662600407:sNHT31354752"
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j8T333KC011301 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:03:06 -0400
Received: from [10.82.242.37] ([10.82.242.37]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:03:06 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A2506F6@photon.jnpr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2005 03:03:06.0557 (UTC) FILETIME=[50944ED0:01C5C4A2]
Message-ID: <433B596A.6080103@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:03:06 -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: OSPF sham link
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A2506F6@photon.jnpr.net>
Precedence: list
List-Help: <http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OSPF>, <mailto:LISTSERV@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM?body=INFO+OSPF>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:OSPF-unsubscribe-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:OSPF-subscribe-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
List-Owner: <mailto:OSPF-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
List-Archive: <http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OSPF>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kalyan Bade wrote:

>Folks,
>
>I have a question regarding the distribution of sham link endpoint in
>the OSPF domain.
>
>>From draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04.txt, section 4.2.7.1 last paragraph,
>it is quoted that sham link endpoint address must not be distributed by
>OSPF. I would like to know the requirement behind this. Say if the sham
>link endpoint is the loopback and some customer wants the loopback in
>the OSPF domain, as per the spec we cannot do that now. This is not
>desirable. Am I missing something here?
>  
>
Hi Kalan,

I recently commented on that this should be clarified in the draft. The 
reason the sham endpoint should
not be redistributed or advertised in OSPF is that sham link endpoint 
reachability
is used to determine whether or not sham link is up. If the sham link 
endpoint is advertised in OSPF
the sham link would provide a viable path and greatly complicate this 
determination. 

Hope this helps,
Acee

 

>Thanks,
>Kalyan.
>
>  
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email