From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 01 16:02:21 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAvGP-0000Ff-GF for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:02:21 -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 QAA27349 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:02:19 -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 <11.010DF560@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:02:15 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84591239 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:02:09 -0400 Received: from 64.102.122.148 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:02:09 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2005 13:02:09 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,162,1122879600"; d="scan'208"; a="8175042:sNHT19734316" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j81K1tQr020604; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:01:59 -0400 Received: from [10.82.217.45] ([10.82.217.45]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:01:59 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2005 20:01:59.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[03035C10:01C5AF30] Message-ID: <43175E36.2030107@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:01:58 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: IANA Considerations for OSPF- draft-ietf-ospf-iana-01.txt Comments: cc: Kireeti Kompella To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This begins working group last call for draft-ietf-ospf-iana-01.txt. We would like to publish this document ASAP so we can start referring to it and get IANA moving on the required registries. The last call will end in two weeks (September 16th). Please send any comments to this list. Thanks, Acee From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 01 17:39:42 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAwmb-00012f-Vf for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:39:42 -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 RAA00872 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:39:39 -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 <9.010DF704@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:39:39 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84597135 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:39:36 -0400 Received: from 206.190.49.65 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:39:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 37595 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Sep 2005 21:39:36 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=CmNrLqssJCTv1k0h+PimcNZmWdywlBgvQIcYPskD+6sZeOzXlkfXK+FcsxP454qCVIMfzDCya/P6+zYpH34V9NCwLh8JD9sr+VKuTkAxsVXhK1PPsG1Y/y9bpfBh7MYatKVCzgt5MH/5arcv/0dAeBeY8eUAaJwZW9vc7BTFAtY= ; Received: from [204.154.128.113] by web53115.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:39:36 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <20050901213936.37593.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:39:36 -0700 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: John Pecola Subject: Network Mask 0 for Summary Net LSAs To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi What should ospf do if it receives a type 3 summary LSA with a non-zero link-state id but a zero network mask? Should it be considered an invalid LSA or should it be stored in the database but not used in route calculation. Any pointers are appreciated. Thanks John ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 01 17:50:48 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAwxM-0006DE-UG for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:50:48 -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 RAA01233 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:50:46 -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 <5.010DF787@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:50:35 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84597444 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:50:33 -0400 Received: from 64.102.122.149 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:50:33 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2005 17:50:34 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,162,1122868800"; d="scan'208"; a="68723725:sNHT34652844" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j81LoMQt014197 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:50:25 -0400 Received: from [10.82.217.45] ([10.82.217.45]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:50:25 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <15226CC274ADF842929EEAB80EB965F0FD347C@kavithai.ctd.hcltech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2005 21:50:25.0397 (UTC) FILETIME=[28E73A50:01C5AF3F] Message-ID: <431777A0.9000802@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:50:24 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: Reg: DR/BDR election To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <15226CC274ADF842929EEAB80EB965F0FD347C@kavithai.ctd.hcltech.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Srinivasaragavan Jayaraman - CTD, Chennai wrote: >Hi All, > > I have a doubt regarding the DR/BDR election process. > > In section 9.4 of RFC 2328, it says that the router having the >highest priority might not necessarily be the DR and nor the one having the >second highest priority be the BDR. We are aware that this situation could >arise when a higher priority router comes up after the DR and BDR are >elected. Can the above situation occur in any other instance? > > If there is bi-directional connectivity between all the DR-eligible routers, it should not. Hope this helps, Acee > Some one plz clarify. >Thanks >Regards >Srinivasaragavan J >DISCLAIMER >This message and any attachment(s) contained here are information that is confidential, proprietary to HCL Technologies >and its customers. Contents may be privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the >individual or the entity it is addressed to. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to >read, forward, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, >please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer > > > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 01 18:10:19 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAxGF-0006Nd-FW for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:10:19 -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 SAA02279 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:10:16 -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 <3.010DF823@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:10:17 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84598685 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:10:17 -0400 Received: from 171.68.10.87 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:10:17 -0400 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2005 15:10:16 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,163,1122879600"; d="scan'208"; a="209140770:sNHT29580566" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j81M9eZR006520 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:10:10 -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); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:10:09 -0400 Received: from [10.82.217.45] ([10.82.217.45]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:10:08 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20050901213936.37593.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2005 22:10:08.0806 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA451C60:01C5AF41] Message-ID: <43177C40.3050003@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:10:08 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: Network Mask 0 for Summary Net LSAs To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <20050901213936.37593.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Pecola wrote: >Hi > >What should ospf do if it receives a type 3 summary >LSA with a non-zero link-state id but a zero network >mask? Should it be considered an invalid LSA or should >it be stored in the database but not used in route >calculation. > > Hi John, OSPF allows the setting of the host bits in type 3 LSIDs. What makes you think the above is invalid? Thanks, Acee >Any pointers are appreciated. > >Thanks >John > > > >____________________________________________________ >Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 01 18:42:32 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAxlQ-0004jA-N7 for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:42:32 -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 SAA04327 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:42:30 -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 <3.010DF87F@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:42:30 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84600308 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:42:29 -0400 Received: from 206.190.49.63 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:42:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 25969 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Sep 2005 22:42:29 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Xi7rkNjjHvqCtBvT+wXInafYTvPwVPc71XY2fkMuNtzsac+S+JI4VjMWD//B4Io4FUDtF1HHnYdlhyVyw57XMGirxX7gUVM4WN9owMNC8jYXYwLu0MFjm1sEwrQM+9O/xss6Oig6iXdlC1K33ye2LW6lU55XCSG2o23W4jEFm90= ; Received: from [204.154.128.113] by web53113.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:42:29 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <20050901224229.25967.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:42:29 -0700 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: John Pecola Subject: Re: Network Mask 0 for Summary Net LSAs To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Acee, If a type 3 LSA with LSId A.B.C.0 is received but with the network mask of 0.0.0.0, shouldn't it be considered a bad prefix-mask combination? Otherwise, a 0.0.0.0/0 route will be added corresponding to this LSA. Or, is appendix E applicable in this case also? John >Hi > >What should ospf do if it receives a type 3 summary >LSA with a non-zero link-state id but a zero network >mask? Should it be considered an invalid LSA or should >it be stored in the database but not used in route calculation. > > >Hi John, > >OSPF allows the setting of the host bits in type 3 >LSIDs. What makes you think the above is invalid? > >Thanks, >Acee ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 01 19:28:22 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAyTl-0007pA-Ug for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:28:22 -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 TAA06495 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:28:19 -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 <15.010DFA13@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:28:20 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84602348 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:28:18 -0400 Received: from 171.68.10.86 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:28:18 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2005 16:28:18 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j81NRWQs018946 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:28:13 -0700 Received: from [10.82.217.45] ([10.82.217.45]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:28:11 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20050901224229.25967.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2005 23:28:11.0367 (UTC) FILETIME=[D14B3770:01C5AF4C] Message-ID: <43178E89.2010901@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:28:09 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: Network Mask 0 for Summary Net LSAs To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <20050901224229.25967.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Pecola wrote: >Acee, > >If a type 3 LSA with LSId A.B.C.0 is received but with >the network mask of 0.0.0.0, shouldn't it be >considered a bad prefix-mask combination? Otherwise, a >0.0.0.0/0 route will be added corresponding to this >LSA. > >Or, is appendix E applicable in this case also? > > Yes. In fact, there was a gated derivative that always advertised an LSID of 255.255.255.255 for default. Acee >John > > > >>Hi >> >>What should ospf do if it receives a type 3 summary >>LSA with a non-zero link-state id but a zero network >>mask? Should it be considered an invalid LSA or >> >> >should > > >>it be stored in the database but not used in route >> >> >calculation. > > >> >> >>Hi John, >> >>OSPF allows the setting of the host bits in type 3 >>LSIDs. What makes >> >> >you think the above is invalid? > > >>Thanks, >>Acee >> >> > > > > > >____________________________________________________ >Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 01 19:50:27 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAyp9-0001Xh-5t for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:50:27 -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 TAA07286 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:24 -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 <4.010DF9D6@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:25 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84603889 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:19 -0400 Received: from 171.71.176.72 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:19 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2005 16:50:18 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,163,1122879600"; d="scan'208"; a="338182640:sNHT1998796502" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j81NoD0L019759 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:13 -0400 Received: from [10.82.217.45] ([10.82.217.45]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:13 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20050901224229.25967.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com> <43178E89.2010901@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2005 23:50:13.0117 (UTC) FILETIME=[E51E42D0:01C5AF4F] Message-ID: <431793B4.6080406@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:50:12 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: Network Mask 0 for Summary Net LSAs To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <43178E89.2010901@cisco.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Acee Lindem wrote: > John Pecola wrote: > >> Acee, >> >> If a type 3 LSA with LSId A.B.C.0 is received but with >> the network mask of 0.0.0.0, shouldn't it be >> considered a bad prefix-mask combination? Otherwise, a >> 0.0.0.0/0 route will be added corresponding to this >> LSA. >> >> Or, is appendix E applicable in this case also? >> >> > Yes. In fact, there was a gated derivative that always advertised > an LSID of 255.255.255.255 for default. Actually, I looked at RFC 2328 and there are a couple places where it explicitly states that the default destination will have an LSID of DefaultDestination. Also, I can see some advantage to NOT allowing a non-zero LSID for default (irrespective of the version of gated that advertised 255.255.255.255). From section 12.1.4: When an AS-external-LSA (LS Type = 5) is describing a default route, its Link State ID is set to DefaultDestination (0.0.0.0). From section 12.4.3.1: In a stub area, instead of importing external routes each area border router originates a "default summary- LSA" into the area. The Link State ID for the default summary-LSA is set to DefaultDestination, and the metric set to the (per-area) configurable parameter StubDefaultCost. Note that StubDefaultCost need not be configured identically in all of the stub area's area border routers. From section 12.4.4 AS-external-LSAs describe routes to destinations external to the Autonomous System. Most AS-external-LSAs describe routes to specific external destinations; in these cases the LSA's Link State ID is set to the destination network's IP address (if necessary, the Link State ID can also have one or more of the network's "host" bits set; see Appendix E for details). However, a default route for the Autonomous System can be described in an AS-external-LSA by setting the LSA's Link State ID to DefaultDestination (0.0.0.0). The main impetus for not allowing it is that one would not have to walk the whole summary database for an summary or AS calculation for default (since any LSID could be a valid candidate with one or more host bits set). Hence, it seems to me we would be better off not allowing this case. Acee > > Acee > > >> John >> >> >> >>> Hi >>> >>> What should ospf do if it receives a type 3 summary >>> LSA with a non-zero link-state id but a zero network >>> mask? Should it be considered an invalid LSA or >>> >> >> should >> >> >>> it be stored in the database but not used in route >>> >> >> calculation. >> >> >>> >>> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> OSPF allows the setting of the host bits in type 3 >>> LSIDs. What makes >>> >> >> you think the above is invalid? >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________ >> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page >> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >> >> >> > > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 01 19:54:32 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAyt6-0003Xv-RE for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:54:32 -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 TAA07388 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:54:29 -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 <7.010DFA43@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:54:31 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84604007 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:54:30 -0400 Received: from 64.102.122.149 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:54:29 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2005 19:54:30 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,163,1122868800"; d="scan'208"; a="68738071:sNHT31830892" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j81NsRQl011537 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:54:27 -0400 Received: from [10.82.217.45] ([10.82.217.45]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:54:27 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20050901224229.25967.qmail@web53113.mail.yahoo.com> <43178E89.2010901@cisco.com> <431793B4.6080406@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2005 23:54:27.0490 (UTC) FILETIME=[7CBC8020:01C5AF50] Message-ID: <431794B3.9050608@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:54:27 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: Network Mask 0 for Summary Net LSAs To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <431793B4.6080406@cisco.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Acee Lindem wrote: > Acee Lindem wrote: > >> John Pecola wrote: >> >>> Acee, >>> >>> If a type 3 LSA with LSId A.B.C.0 is received but with >>> the network mask of 0.0.0.0, shouldn't it be >>> considered a bad prefix-mask combination? Otherwise, a >>> 0.0.0.0/0 route will be added corresponding to this >>> LSA. >>> >>> Or, is appendix E applicable in this case also? >>> >>> >> Yes. In fact, there was a gated derivative that always advertised >> an LSID of 255.255.255.255 for default. > > > Actually, I looked at RFC 2328 and there are a couple places where > it explicitly states that the default destination will have an LSID > of DefaultDestination. > Also, I can see some advantage to NOT allowing a non-zero LSID for > default (irrespective of the version of gated that advertised > 255.255.255.255). > > From section 12.1.4: > > When an AS-external-LSA (LS Type = 5) is describing a > default route, its Link State ID is set to > DefaultDestination (0.0.0.0). > > From section 12.4.3.1: > > In a stub area, instead of importing external routes > each area border router originates a "default summary- > LSA" into the area. The Link State ID for the default > summary-LSA is set to DefaultDestination, and the metric > set to the (per-area) configurable parameter > StubDefaultCost. Note that StubDefaultCost need not be > configured identically in all of the stub area's area > border routers. > >> From section 12.4.4 > > > AS-external-LSAs describe routes to destinations external to > the Autonomous System. Most AS-external-LSAs describe > routes to specific external destinations; in these cases the > LSA's Link State ID is set to the destination network's IP > address (if necessary, the Link State ID can also have one > or more of the network's "host" bits set; see Appendix E for > details). However, a default route for the Autonomous > System can be described in an AS-external-LSA by setting the > LSA's Link State ID to DefaultDestination (0.0.0.0). > The main impetus for not allowing it is that one would not have to > walk the > whole summary database for an summary or AS calculation for default > (since > any LSID could be a valid candidate with one or more host bits set). > Hence, > it seems to me we would be better off not allowing this case. If it isn't apparent, the above argument applies to incremental SPF calculation as described in sections 16.5 and 16.6 of RFC 2328. > Acee > >> >> Acee >> >> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> What should ospf do if it receives a type 3 summary >>>> LSA with a non-zero link-state id but a zero network >>>> mask? Should it be considered an invalid LSA or >>>> >>> >>> >>> should >>> >>> >>>> it be stored in the database but not used in route >>>> >>> >>> >>> calculation. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> >>>> OSPF allows the setting of the host bits in type 3 >>>> LSIDs. What makes >>>> >>> >>> >>> you think the above is invalid? >>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________ >>> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page >>> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >>> >>> >>> >> >> > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 01 21:08:20 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EB02W-0001f8-BV for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:08:20 -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 VAA10640 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:08:16 -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 <18.010DF918@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:08:17 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84607428 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:08:13 -0400 Received: from 206.190.49.56 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:08:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 57623 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Sep 2005 01:08:13 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=vyxDMo62pDNuhgzjT4bzPJrL4ckih+mTuEdYtLG7UzFlwy5Rveq0b9uMQKly+k4OQ6tWtNQNbZm+mw67Y7xivgqTGbHmWVX20GpQUc97psbb+qiJuXqHogOcQSSVpGHuc1K3ocK5IuAN15m1SUglpcXaXhv9mPkDefmZu+KjcBU= ; Received: from [204.154.128.113] by web53106.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:08:13 PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <20050902010813.57621.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:08:13 -0700 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: John Pecola Subject: Re: Network Mask 0 for Summary Net LSAs To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Acee Thanks for all the input. My confusion was because of receiving a bad mask of 0.0.0.0 instead of 255.255.255.0 for network A.B.C.0. In this case the LSA is installed with LSId A.B.C.0 but the route should be installed as 0.0.0.0/0. Interestingly, testing this case with two vendors gave different results. One installed the default route and the other did not! Regards John Acee Lindem wrote: > Acee Lindem wrote: > >> John Pecola wrote: >> >>> Acee, >>> >>> If a type 3 LSA with LSId A.B.C.0 is received but with >>> the network mask of 0.0.0.0, shouldn't it be >>> considered a bad prefix-mask combination? Otherwise, a 0.0.0.0/0 >>> route will be added corresponding to this LSA. >>> >>> Or, is appendix E applicable in this case also? >>> >>> >> Yes. In fact, there was a gated derivative that always advertised an >> LSID of 255.255.255.255 for default. > > > Actually, I looked at RFC 2328 and there are a couple places where it > explicitly states that the default destination will have an LSID of > DefaultDestination. Also, I can see some advantage to NOT allowing a > non-zero LSID for default (irrespective of the version of gated that > advertised 255.255.255.255). > > From section 12.1.4: > > When an AS-external-LSA (LS Type = 5) is describing a > default route, its Link State ID is set to > DefaultDestination (0.0.0.0). > > From section 12.4.3.1: > > In a stub area, instead of importing external routes > each area border router originates a "default summary- > LSA" into the area. The Link State ID for the default > summary-LSA is set to DefaultDestination, and the metric > set to the (per-area) configurable parameter > StubDefaultCost. Note that StubDefaultCost need not be > configured identically in all of the stub area's area > border routers. > >> From section 12.4.4 > > > AS-external-LSAs describe routes to destinations external to > the Autonomous System. Most AS-external-LSAs describe > routes to specific external destinations; in these cases the > LSA's Link State ID is set to the destination network's IP > address (if necessary, the Link State ID can also have one > or more of the network's "host" bits set; see Appendix E for > details). However, a default route for the Autonomous > System can be described in an AS-external-LSA by setting the > LSA's Link State ID to DefaultDestination (0.0.0.0). > The main impetus for not allowing it is that one would not have to > walk the > whole summary database for an summary or AS calculation for default > (since > any LSID could be a valid candidate with one or more host bits set). > Hence, > it seems to me we would be better off not allowing this case. If it isn't apparent, the above argument applies to incremental SPF calculation as described in sections 16.5 and 16.6 of RFC 2328. > Acee > >> >> Acee >> >> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> What should ospf do if it receives a type 3 summary >>>> LSA with a non-zero link-state id but a zero network >>>> mask? Should it be considered an invalid LSA or >>>> >>> >>> >>> should >>> >>> >>>> it be stored in the database but not used in route >>>> >>> >>> >>> calculation. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> >>>> OSPF allows the setting of the host bits in type 3 >>>> LSIDs. What makes >>>> >>> >>> >>> you think the above is invalid? >>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Tue Sep 06 12:19:30 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ECgAU-0003IB-Hd for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:19:30 -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 MAA06098 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:19:27 -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 <9.010E4202@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:19:27 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84926686 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:19:23 -0400 Received: from 64.102.122.149 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:19:23 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2005 12:19:23 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,172,1122868800"; d="scan'208"; a="69155803:sNHT27308120" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j86GIvR9025212 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:19:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:19:17 -0400 Received: from [10.82.216.255] ([10.82.216.255]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:19:16 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <43175E36.2030107@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2005 16:19:16.0948 (UTC) FILETIME=[BA734140:01C5B2FE] Message-ID: <431DC184.8030307@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:19:16 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: IANA Considerations for OSPF- draft-ietf-ospf-iana-01.txt To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <43175E36.2030107@cisco.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forgot to mention - the intended document status is proposed standard. Thanks, Acee Acee Lindem wrote: > This begins working group last call for draft-ietf-ospf-iana-01.txt. > We would like to publish this document ASAP so we can start > referring to it and get IANA moving on the required registries. > > The last call will end in two weeks (September 16th). Please send any > comments to this list. > > Thanks, > Acee > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Wed Sep 07 15:40:55 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ED5mx-00010o-TU for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:40:55 -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 PAA12222 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:40:54 -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 <13.010E55BA@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:40:51 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85023944 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:40:46 -0400 Received: from 209.119.0.160 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:30:46 -0400 Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (lists.state.gov) by almond.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <7.0093A08A@almond.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:30:46 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:30:46 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Ali Alwan Subject: Wireless OSPF running on phyiscal and Sub interface To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Hello, I am trying to setup 4 wireless routers (single Wireless interface) running OSPF; by creating subinterface to each physical interface and assign different subnet than phyiscal interface. It started to drop 224.0.0.5 packets also, it treat it Subinterface subnet as a STUB network. Is this standard? Cheers... Ali From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Wed Sep 07 16:03:16 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ED68a-0006CT-4M for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:03:16 -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 QAA14809 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:03:14 -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 <18.010E5502@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:03:10 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85026642 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:03:09 -0400 Received: from 64.102.122.148 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:03:09 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2005 13:03:09 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,177,1122879600"; d="scan'208"; a="8817347:sNHT27917688" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j87K2NRL022764 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:03:07 -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); Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:03:02 -0400 Received: from [10.82.216.255] ([10.82.216.255]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:03:02 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2005 20:03:02.0527 (UTC) FILETIME=[2721C8F0:01C5B3E7] Message-ID: <431F4775.70308@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:03:01 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: Wireless OSPF running on phyiscal and Sub interface To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ali Alwan wrote: >Hello, >I am trying to setup 4 wireless routers (single Wireless interface) running >OSPF; by creating subinterface to each physical interface and assign >different subnet than phyiscal interface. It started to drop 224.0.0.5 >packets also, it treat it Subinterface subnet as a STUB network. Is this >standard? > > Hi Ali, This sounds like a vendor specific question which probably should be directed to a vendor specific forum. Having said that, you may want to check the type of interface the sub-interfaces are being defined as (broadcast, point-to-multipoint, NBMA, etc). You also may want to assure unicast ping works between the routers. Good Luck, Acee >Cheers... >Ali > > > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Wed Sep 07 16:24:23 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ED6T1-0003KN-T1 for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:24:23 -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 QAA20027 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:24:21 -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 <2.010E5792@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:24:22 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85027991 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:24:21 -0400 Received: from 64.233.184.203 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:24:21 -0400 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so1351081wra for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=br5kIub4QSiawgRSJzioKbJ5JkEJcrDGBylsPhnXVfOW5PMGOsxX6S97NdtKtPnhu2EXMes696jQWqEtQ9QucwVNUEhT46gpJ39Qq1p2YBwK6GpcF2Hdmp/FgAWqC3uzVvhhnZ7Tc0HVuG8OXHYNLGhxO7fyNEfUtZT9lNnlKtQ= Received: by 10.54.47.36 with SMTP id u36mr5890633wru; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.133.2 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_37915_9759357.1126124660644" References: <431F4775.70308@cisco.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:24:20 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Ali Alwan Subject: Re: Wireless OSPF running on phyiscal and Sub interface To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <431F4775.70308@cisco.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: ------=_Part_37915_9759357.1126124660644 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you...=20 I am using OPnet standard model and runing broadcast on all interfaces.=20 There routing table is built and all routers can reach each other, just=20 seems Hello messeges is going of physical interface but not for=20 Subinterface.=20 Is there wireless Cisco Opnet model? Cheers... Ali On 9/7/05, Acee Lindem wrote:=20 >=20 > Ali Alwan wrote: >=20 > >Hello, > >I am trying to setup 4 wireless routers (single Wireless interface)=20 > running > >OSPF; by creating subinterface to each physical interface and assign > >different subnet than phyiscal interface. It started to drop 224.0.0.5 > >packets also, it treat it Subinterface subnet as a STUB network. Is this > >standard? > > > > > Hi Ali, >=20 > This sounds like a vendor specific question which probably should be > directed to a vendor specific > forum. Having said that, you may want to check the type of interface the > sub-interfaces are > being defined as (broadcast, point-to-multipoint, NBMA, etc). You also > may want to assure > unicast ping works between the routers. >=20 > Good Luck, > Acee >=20 >=20 > >Cheers... > >Ali > > > > > > > ------=_Part_37915_9759357.1126124660644 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you...
I am using OPnet standard model and runing broadcast on all interfaces= . There routing table is built and all routers can reach each other, just s= eems Hello messeges is going of physical interface but not for Subinterface= .=20
 
Is there wireless Cisco Opnet model?
 
Cheers...
 
Ali


 
On 9/7/05, A= cee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>= wrote:
Ali Alwan wrote:

>Hell= o,
>I am trying to setup 4 wireless routers (single Wireless interfac= e) running
>OSPF; by creating subinterface to each physical interface and assig= n
>different subnet than phyiscal interface. It started to drop 224.0.0.5
>packets also, it treat it Subi= nterface subnet as a STUB network. Is this
>standard?
>
>
Hi Ali,

This sounds like a vend= or specific question which probably should be
directed to a vendor speci= fic
forum. Having said that, you may want to check the type of interface= the
sub-interfaces are
being defined as (broadcast, point-to-multipoint,= NBMA, etc). You also
may want to assure
unicast ping works between t= he routers.

Good Luck,
Acee


>Cheers...
>Ali
>
>
>

------=_Part_37915_9759357.1126124660644-- From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Wed Sep 07 16:30:51 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ED6ZH-0006V8-Bv for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:30:51 -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 QAA20466 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:30:49 -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 <0.010E5869@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:30:49 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85028375 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:30:48 -0400 Received: from 69.25.242.156 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:30:48 -0400 Received: from outgoing.onebox.com (unverified [172.21.6.78]) by ucmmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.1.20) with SMTP id ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:30:48 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART_BOUNDARY_CYTUYNSYOP" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:30:46 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Sean Andersen Subject: Re: Wireless OSPF running on phyiscal and Sub interface To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: --PART_BOUNDARY_CYTUYNSYOP Content-Type: text/plain; not specified Ali, you need to contact Opnet to get your answers. Having said that, some routers do nothing else but arp on sub-interfaces. You might need to have an interface per subnet for any routing. Please forward your vendor specific questions to the vendors of the routers you are using. Best regards, Sean -----Original Message----- From: Ali Alwan Sent: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:24:20 -0400 To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Subject: Re: Wireless OSPF running on phyiscal and Sub interface Thank you... I am using OPnet standard model and runing broadcast on all interfaces. There routing table is built and all routers can reach each other, just seems Hello messeges is going of physical interface but not for Subinterface. Is there wireless Cisco Opnet model? Cheers... Ali On 9/7/05, Acee Lindem wrote: > > Ali Alwan wrote: > > >Hello, > >I am trying to setup 4 wireless routers (single Wireless interface) > running > >OSPF; by creating subinterface to each physical interface and assign > >different subnet than phyiscal interface. It started to drop 224.0.0.5 > >packets also, it treat it Subinterface subnet as a STUB network. Is this > >standard? > > > > > Hi Ali, > > This sounds like a vendor specific question which probably should be > directed to a vendor specific > forum. Having said that, you may want to check the type of interface the > sub-interfaces are > being defined as (broadcast, point-to-multipoint, NBMA, etc). You also > may want to assure > unicast ping works between the routers. > > Good Luck, > Acee > > > >Cheers... > >Ali > > > > > > > --PART_BOUNDARY_CYTUYNSYOP Content-Type: text/html; name="20059716269.html" Content-Disposition: filename="20059716269.html" Content-MD5: 6CtP4bQoNROIrf5ts7fxuQ== Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 //48AGQAaQB2AD4AVABoAGEAbgBrACAAeQBvAHUALgAuAC4AIAA8AC8AZABpAHYAPgANAAoA PABkAGkAdgA+AEkAIABhAG0AIAB1AHMAaQBuAGcAIABPAFAAbgBlAHQAIABzAHQAYQBuAGQA YQByAGQAIABtAG8AZABlAGwAIABhAG4AZAAgAHIAdQBuAGkAbgBnACAAYgByAG8AYQBkAGMA YQBzAHQAIABvAG4AIABhAGwAbAAgAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBmAGEAYwBlAHMALgAgAFQAaABlAHIA ZQAgAHIAbwB1AHQAaQBuAGcAIAB0AGEAYgBsAGUAIABpAHMAIABiAHUAaQBsAHQAIABhAG4A ZAAgAGEAbABsACAAcgBvAHUAdABlAHIAcwAgAGMAYQBuACAAcgBlAGEAYwBoACAAZQBhAGMA aAAgAG8AdABoAGUAcgAsACAAagB1AHMAdAAgAHMAZQBlAG0AcwAgAEgAZQBsAGwAbwAgAG0A ZQBzAHMAZQBnAGUAcwAgAGkAcwAgAGcAbwBpAG4AZwAgAG8AZgAgAHAAaAB5AHMAaQBjAGEA bAAgAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBmAGEAYwBlACAAYgB1AHQAIABuAG8AdAAgAGYAbwByACAAUwB1AGIA aQBuAHQAZQByAGYAYQBjAGUALgAgAA0ACgA8AC8AZABpAHYAPgANAAoAPABkAGkAdgA+ACYA bgBiAHMAcAA7ADwALwBkAGkAdgA+AA0ACgA8AGQAaQB2AD4ASQBzACAAdABoAGUAcgBlACAA dwBpAHIAZQBsAGUAcwBzACAAQwBpAHMAYwBvACAATwBwAG4AZQB0ACAAbQBvAGQAZQBsAD8A PAAvAGQAaQB2AD4ADQAKADwAZABpAHYAPgAmAG4AYgBzAHAAOwA8AC8AZABpAHYAPgANAAoA PABkAGkAdgA+AEMAaABlAGUAcgBzAC4ALgAuADwALwBkAGkAdgA+AA0ACgA8AGQAaQB2AD4A JgBuAGIAcwBwADsAPAAvAGQAaQB2AD4ADQAKADwAZABpAHYAPgBBAGwAaQA8AC8AZABpAHYA PgANAAoAPABkAGkAdgA+ADwAYgByAD4APABiAHIAPgAmAG4AYgBzAHAAOwA8AC8AZABpAHYA PgANAAoAPABkAGkAdgA+ADwAcwBwAGEAbgAgAGMAbABhAHMAcwA9ACIAZwBtAGEAaQBsAF8A cQB1AG8AdABlACIAPgBPAG4AIAA5AC8ANwAvADAANQAsACAAPABiACAAYwBsAGEAcwBzAD0A IgBnAG0AYQBpAGwAXwBzAGUAbgBkAGUAcgBuAGEAbQBlACIAPgBBAGMAZQBlACAATABpAG4A ZABlAG0APAAvAGIAPgAgACYAbAB0ADsAPABhACAAaAByAGUAZgA9ACIAbQBhAGkAbAB0AG8A OgBhAGMAZQBlAEAAYwBpAHMAYwBvAC4AYwBvAG0AIgA+AGEAYwBlAGUAQABjAGkAcwBjAG8A LgBjAG8AbQA8AC8AYQA+ACYAZwB0ADsAIAB3AHIAbwB0AGUAOgA8AC8AcwBwAGEAbgA+AA0A CgA8AGIAbABvAGMAawBxAHUAbwB0AGUAIABjAGwAYQBzAHMAPQAiAGcAbQBhAGkAbABfAHEA dQBvAHQAZQAiACAAcwB0AHkAbABlAD0AIgBQAEEARABEAEkATgBHAC0ATABFAEYAVAA6ACAA MQBlAHgAOwAgAE0AQQBSAEcASQBOADoAIAAwAHAAeAAgADAAcAB4ACAAMABwAHgAIAAwAC4A OABlAHgAOwAgAEIATwBSAEQARQBSAC0ATABFAEYAVAA6ACAAIwBjAGMAYwAgADEAcAB4ACAA cwBvAGwAaQBkACIAPgBBAGwAaQAgAEEAbAB3AGEAbgAgAHcAcgBvAHQAZQA6ADwAYgByAD4A PABiAHIAPgAmAGcAdAA7AEgAZQBsAGwAbwAsADwAYgByAD4AJgBnAHQAOwBJACAAYQBtACAA dAByAHkAaQBuAGcAIAB0AG8AIABzAGUAdAB1AHAAIAA0ACAAdwBpAHIAZQBsAGUAcwBzACAA cgBvAHUAdABlAHIAcwAgACgAcwBpAG4AZwBsAGUAIABXAGkAcgBlAGwAZQBzAHMAIABpAG4A dABlAHIAZgBhAGMAZQApACAAcgB1AG4AbgBpAG4AZwANAAoAPABiAHIAPgAmAGcAdAA7AE8A UwBQAEYAOwAgAGIAeQAgAGMAcgBlAGEAdABpAG4AZwAgAHMAdQBiAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBmAGEA YwBlACAAdABvACAAZQBhAGMAaAAgAHAAaAB5AHMAaQBjAGEAbAAgAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBmAGEA YwBlACAAYQBuAGQAIABhAHMAcwBpAGcAbgA8AGIAcgA+ACYAZwB0ADsAZABpAGYAZgBlAHIA ZQBuAHQAIABzAHUAYgBuAGUAdAAgAHQAaABhAG4AIABwAGgAeQBpAHMAYwBhAGwAIABpAG4A dABlAHIAZgBhAGMAZQAuACAASQB0ACAAcwB0AGEAcgB0AGUAZAAgAHQAbwAgAGQAcgBvAHAA IAA8AGEAIABoAHIAZQBmAD0AIgBoAHQAdABwADoALwAvADIAMgA0AC4AMAAuADAALgA1ACIA PgAyADIANAAuADAALgAwAC4ANQA8AC8AYQA+ADwAYgByAD4AJgBnAHQAOwBwAGEAYwBrAGUA dABzACAAYQBsAHMAbwAsACAAaQB0ACAAdAByAGUAYQB0ACAAaQB0ACAAUwB1AGIAaQBuAHQA ZQByAGYAYQBjAGUAIABzAHUAYgBuAGUAdAAgAGEAcwAgAGEAIABTAFQAVQBCACAAbgBlAHQA dwBvAHIAawAuACAASQBzACAAdABoAGkAcwANAAoAPABiAHIAPgAmAGcAdAA7AHMAdABhAG4A ZABhAHIAZAA/ADwAYgByAD4AJgBnAHQAOwA8AGIAcgA+ACYAZwB0ADsAPABiAHIAPgBIAGkA IABBAGwAaQAsADwAYgByAD4APABiAHIAPgBUAGgAaQBzACAAcwBvAHUAbgBkAHMAIABsAGkA awBlACAAYQAgAHYAZQBuAGQAbwByACAAcwBwAGUAYwBpAGYAaQBjACAAcQB1AGUAcwB0AGkA bwBuACAAdwBoAGkAYwBoACAAcAByAG8AYgBhAGIAbAB5ACAAcwBoAG8AdQBsAGQAIABiAGUA PABiAHIAPgBkAGkAcgBlAGMAdABlAGQAIAB0AG8AIABhACAAdgBlAG4AZABvAHIAIABzAHAA ZQBjAGkAZgBpAGMAPABiAHIAPgBmAG8AcgB1AG0ALgAgAEgAYQB2AGkAbgBnACAAcwBhAGkA ZAAgAHQAaABhAHQALAAgAHkAbwB1ACAAbQBhAHkAIAB3AGEAbgB0ACAAdABvACAAYwBoAGUA YwBrACAAdABoAGUAIAB0AHkAcABlACAAbwBmACAAaQBuAHQAZQByAGYAYQBjAGUAIAB0AGgA ZQANAAoAPABiAHIAPgBzAHUAYgAtAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBmAGEAYwBlAHMAIABhAHIAZQA8AGIA cgA+AGIAZQBpAG4AZwAgAGQAZQBmAGkAbgBlAGQAIABhAHMAIAAoAGIAcgBvAGEAZABjAGEA cwB0ACwAIABwAG8AaQBuAHQALQB0AG8ALQBtAHUAbAB0AGkAcABvAGkAbgB0ACwAIABOAEIA TQBBACwAIABlAHQAYwApAC4AIABZAG8AdQAgAGEAbABzAG8APABiAHIAPgBtAGEAeQAgAHcA YQBuAHQAIAB0AG8AIABhAHMAcwB1AHIAZQA8AGIAcgA+AHUAbgBpAGMAYQBzAHQAIABwAGkA bgBnACAAdwBvAHIAawBzACAAYgBlAHQAdwBlAGUAbgAgAHQAaABlACAAcgBvAHUAdABlAHIA cwAuADwAYgByAD4APABiAHIAPgBHAG8AbwBkACAATAB1AGMAawAsADwAYgByAD4AQQBjAGUA ZQA8AGIAcgA+ADwAYgByAD4APABiAHIAPgAmAGcAdAA7AEMAaABlAGUAcgBzAC4ALgAuADwA YgByAD4AJgBnAHQAOwBBAGwAaQANAAoAPABiAHIAPgAmAGcAdAA7ADwAYgByAD4AJgBnAHQA OwA8AGIAcgA+ACYAZwB0ADsAPABiAHIAPgA8AC8AYgBsAG8AYwBrAHEAdQBvAHQAZQA+ADwA LwBkAGkAdgA+ADwAYgByAD4ADQAKAA== --PART_BOUNDARY_CYTUYNSYOP-- From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Wed Sep 07 16:34:32 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ED6cq-0008Ad-MV for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:34:32 -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 QAA20777 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:34:30 -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 <14.010E5608@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:34:31 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85028565 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:34:27 -0400 Received: from 66.208.44.5 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:34:25 -0400 Received: from WTN12090.opnet.com (wtn12090.opnet.com [172.16.12.90]) by enterprise56.opnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j87KYPb0026795 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:34:25 -0400 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 References: <431F4775.70308@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1828082500==.ALT" Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907163231.02b8d380@mail.opnet.com> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:34:23 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Ashish Zalani Subject: Re: Wireless OSPF running on phyiscal and Sub interface To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: --=====================_1828082500==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Ali, If you are seeing problems when using an OPNET model, please contact OPNET Technical Support (support@opnet.com). Regards, -Ashish At 04:24 PM 9/7/2005, you wrote: >Thank you... >I am using OPnet standard model and runing broadcast on all >interfaces. There routing table is built and all routers can reach >each other, just seems Hello messeges is going of physical interface >but not for Subinterface. > >Is there wireless Cisco Opnet model? > >Cheers... > >Ali > > > >On 9/7/05, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> wrote: >Ali Alwan wrote: > > >Hello, > >I am trying to setup 4 wireless routers (single Wireless interface) running > >OSPF; by creating subinterface to each physical interface and assign > >different subnet than phyiscal interface. It started to drop > 224.0.0.5 > >packets also, it treat it Subinterface subnet as a STUB network. Is this > >standard? > > > > >Hi Ali, > >This sounds like a vendor specific question which probably should be >directed to a vendor specific >forum. Having said that, you may want to check the type of interface the >sub-interfaces are >being defined as (broadcast, point-to-multipoint, NBMA, etc). You also >may want to assure >unicast ping works between the routers. > >Good Luck, >Acee > > > >Cheers... > >Ali > > > > > > > Ashish Zalani Senior Modeling Engineer OPNET Technologies, Inc. --=====================_1828082500==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Ali,

If you are seeing problems when using an OPNET model, please contact OPNET Technical Support (support@opnet.com).

Regards,
-Ashish


At 04:24 PM 9/7/2005, you wrote:
Thank you...
I am using OPnet standard model and runing broadcast on all interfaces. There routing table is built and all routers can reach each other, just seems Hello messeges is going of physical interface but not for Subinterface.
 
Is there wireless Cisco Opnet model?
 
Cheers...
 
Ali


 
On 9/7/05, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
Ali Alwan wrote:

>Hello,
>I am trying to setup 4 wireless routers (single Wireless interface) running
>OSPF; by creating subinterface to each physical interface and assign
>different subnet than phyiscal interface. It started to drop 224.0.0.5
>packets also, it treat it Subinterface subnet as a STUB network. Is this
>standard?
>
>
Hi Ali,

This sounds like a vendor specific question which probably should be
directed to a vendor specific
forum. Having said that, you may want to check the type of interface the
sub-interfaces are
being defined as (broadcast, point-to-multipoint, NBMA, etc). You also
may want to assure
unicast ping works between the routers.

Good Luck,
Acee


>Cheers...
>Ali
>
>
>

Ashish Zalani
Senior Modeling Engineer
OPNET Technologies, Inc. --=====================_1828082500==.ALT-- From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Thu Sep 08 12:04:25 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EDOsz-0000Ek-OZ for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2005 12:04:25 -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 MAA29569 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:04:22 -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 <8.010E63D2@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:04:23 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85086832 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:04:16 -0400 Received: from 64.233.184.193 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:04:16 -0400 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so1496385wra for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=gF5Suj2QLvpr0CClK7vWW708TNH0m5FSfMr8SjL3DVKifgWPvVmBfqTVFvgXiFd/e2qYmI0vT5kUqOxF1pirI09ykUoQ1DHH3TnmcKJgagdrWxohgcwafIt2r27e8B3Vx/cqrv2BlvVtutVJF1rO39RprrYSMfiUtDksBvjS2ZQ= Received: by 10.54.48.62 with SMTP id v62mr6603200wrv; Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.133.2 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_43778_12272600.1126195455322" References: <431F4775.70308@cisco.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20050907163231.02b8d380@mail.opnet.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:04:15 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Ali Alwan Subject: Re: Wireless OSPF running on phyiscal and Sub interface To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050907163231.02b8d380@mail.opnet.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: ------=_Part_43778_12272600.1126195455322 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My question is;=20 In wireless environment; Is OSPF standards treats subinterface as a Stub= =20 network when sending network LSAs? Cheers On 9/7/05, Ashish Zalani wrote:=20 >=20 > Ali, >=20 > If you are seeing problems when using an OPNET model, please contact OPNE= T=20 > Technical Support (support@opnet.com). >=20 > Regards, > -Ashish=20 >=20 >=20 > At 04:24 PM 9/7/2005, you wrote: >=20 > Thank you...=20 > I am using OPnet standard model and runing broadcast on all interfaces.= =20 > There routing table is built and all routers can reach each other, just= =20 > seems Hello messeges is going of physical interface but not for=20 > Subinterface.=20 >=20 > Is there wireless Cisco Opnet model? >=20 > Cheers... >=20 > Ali >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 9/7/05, *Acee Lindem* wrote:=20 > Ali Alwan wrote: >=20 > >Hello, > >I am trying to setup 4 wireless routers (single Wireless interface)=20 > running=20 > >OSPF; by creating subinterface to each physical interface and assign > >different subnet than phyiscal interface. It started to drop 224.0.0.5 > >packets also, it treat it Subinterface subnet as a STUB network. Is this= =20 > >standard? > > > > > Hi Ali, >=20 > This sounds like a vendor specific question which probably should be > directed to a vendor specific > forum. Having said that, you may want to check the type of interface the= =20 > sub-interfaces are > being defined as (broadcast, point-to-multipoint, NBMA, etc). You also > may want to assure > unicast ping works between the routers. >=20 > Good Luck, > Acee >=20 >=20 > >Cheers... > >Ali=20 > > > > > > >=20 > *Ashish Zalani > Senior Modeling Engineer > OPNET Technologies, Inc. * > ------=_Part_43778_12272600.1126195455322 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My question is;
 
In wireless environment; Is OSPF standards treats subinterface as a St= ub network when sending network LSAs?
 
Cheers


 
On 9/7/05, A= shish Zalani <azalani@opnet.com= > wrote:
Ali,

If you are seeing pr= oblems when using an OPNET model, please contact OPNET Technical Support ( support@opnet.com).

Regards= ,
-Ashish=20



At 04:24 PM = 9/7/2005, you wrote:
Thank you...
I am using OPne= t standard model and runing broadcast on all interfaces. There routing tabl= e is built and all routers can reach each other, just seems Hello messeges = is going of physical interface but not for Subinterface.=20
 
Is there wireless Cisco Opnet model?
 
Cheers... 
Ali


 
On 9/7/05, Acee Lindem < acee@cisco.com> wrote:
Ali Alwan wrote:

>Hello,
>I am trying to setup 4 wireless routers (single Wireless interface)= running
>OSPF; by creating subinterface to each physical interface and assig= n
>different subnet than phyiscal interface. It started to drop 224.0.0.5
>packets also, it treat it Subinterface subnet as a STUB network. Is= this
>standard?
>
>
Hi Ali,

This sounds like a vendor specific question which probably should be
directed to a vendor specific
forum. Having said that, you may want to check the type of interface th= e
sub-interfaces are
being defined as (broadcast, point-to-multipoint, NBMA, etc). You also<= br>
may want to assure
unicast ping works between the routers.

Good Luck,
Acee


>Cheers...
>Ali
>
>
>

Ashish Zalani
Senior Modeling Engineer
OPNET Technologies, Inc.=


------=_Part_43778_12272600.1126195455322-- From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Fri Sep 16 16:00:19 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EGMNf-0005it-4n for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:00:19 -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 QAA09596 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:00:16 -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 <1.010F0D21@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:00:04 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85754598 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:00:02 -0400 Received: from 132.151.6.50 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:50:02 -0400 Received: from mlee by newodin.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1EGMDh-0002yM-V2; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:50:01 -0400 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:50:01 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt Comments: To: i-d-announce@ietf.org To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. Title : OSPF Multi-Area Adjacency Author(s) : S. Mirtorabi, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2005-9-16 This memo documents an extension to OSPF to allow a single physical link to be shared by multiple areas. This is necessary to allow the link to be considered an intra-area link in multiple areas. This would create an intra-area path to the corresponding areas sharing the same link. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-9-16105608.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2005-9-16105608.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Fri Sep 16 16:11:55 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EGMYt-0002ka-0L for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:11:55 -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 QAA13337 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:11:50 -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 <5.010F0CBC@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:11:48 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85755717 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:11:48 -0400 Received: from 72.14.204.192 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:11:47 -0400 Received: by qproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id k13so76026qbf for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:11:46 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=cB8BvrBjoj8Q8Q+X0qFZ+VSt0uZwfiogwD3QNN5b3/HpDp+pHakDEmbFjqhg0svA58Wx6dH8t2rmK1kKZCFDkrLozFEGOAXTrVzarKhgQCgyMuIgERanVt/oHBbtjedB0pC/4tsM68oxK4i6sMTGWTAEqkN/MAEo8JNcB6I4WLU= Received: by 10.65.133.7 with SMTP id k7mr21529qbn; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.124.17 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:11:46 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Ramanan N Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is there any technical stuff change in this draft ? I did find some cosmetic touches in this version. Did I miss any ? - Ramanan On 9/16/05, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Gro= up of the IETF. >=20 > Title : OSPF Multi-Area Adjacency > Author(s) : S. Mirtorabi, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2005-9-16 >=20 > This memo documents an extension to OSPF to allow a single physical > link to be shared by multiple areas. This is necessary to allow the > link to be considered an intra-area link in multiple areas. This > would create an intra-area path to the corresponding areas sharing > the same link. >=20 > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt >=20 > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of th= e message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. >=20 >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the usern= ame > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt". >=20 > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >=20 >=20 > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. >=20 > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt". >=20 > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail read= ers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. >=20 >=20 > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. >=20 >=20 >=20 > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Fri Sep 16 16:31:11 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EGMrX-0000Fk-7z for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:31:11 -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 QAA18143 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:31:08 -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 <10.010F0EE6@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:31:02 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85756585 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:31:00 -0400 Received: from 64.102.122.148 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:31:00 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2005 13:31:00 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,117,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="10054141:sNHT23612196" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j8GKUYR9011396 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:30:58 -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); Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:30:55 -0400 Received: from [10.82.241.204] ([10.82.241.204]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:30:55 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2005 20:30:55.0108 (UTC) FILETIME=[89C92440:01C5BAFD] Message-ID: <432B2B7E.8090909@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:30:54 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ramanan N wrote: >Is there any technical stuff change in this draft ? >I did find some cosmetic touches in this version. Did I miss any ? > > Hi Ramanan, Nope - just the new boiler plate for IPR and it was produced using a later version of xml2rfc. We were going to publish this draft as informational but it turned out implementations were in progress so we decided to pull it and go ahead and make it a standards track document. If you have any comments, please forward them to the list. We will re-last call the document as a proposed standard. Thanks, Acee >- >Ramanan > >On 9/16/05, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > >>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >>This draft is a work item of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : OSPF Multi-Area Adjacency >> Author(s) : S. Mirtorabi, et al. >> Filename : draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt >> Pages : 13 >> Date : 2005-9-16 >> >>This memo documents an extension to OSPF to allow a single physical >> link to be shared by multiple areas. This is necessary to allow the >> link to be considered an intra-area link in multiple areas. This >> would create an intra-area path to the corresponding areas sharing >> the same link. >> >>A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt >> >>To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to >>i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. >>You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce >>to change your subscription settings. >> >> >>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username >>"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, >>type "cd internet-drafts" and then >> "get draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt". >> >>A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >> >> >>Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. >> >>Send a message to: >> mailserv@ietf.org. >>In the body type: >> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-04.txt". >> >>NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in >> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this >> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" >> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or >> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers >> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with >> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split >> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on >> how to manipulate these messages. >> >> >>Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >>implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >>Internet-Draft. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Mon Sep 19 13:31:42 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EHPUU-000482-OR for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:31:42 -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 NAA09291 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:31:39 -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 <20.010F33AC@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:31:37 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 85953569 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:31:36 -0400 Received: from 64.102.122.148 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:31:36 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2005 10:31:36 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,123,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="10319593:sNHT20432420" 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 j8JHVCTO011895; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:31:33 -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); Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:31:25 -0400 Received: from [10.82.241.204] ([10.82.241.204]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:31:24 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <43175E36.2030107@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2005 17:31:24.0933 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5801B50:01C5BD3F] Message-ID: <432EF5EC.40006@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:31:24 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: IANA Considerations for OSPF- draft-ietf-ospf-iana-01.txt Comments: To: Kireeti Kompella , IESG Secretary To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <43175E36.2030107@cisco.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Working Group last call for the subject document has completed. The document will be sent to the Routing Area ADs for their review and subsequent review by the IESG. Acee Lindem wrote: > This begins working group last call for draft-ietf-ospf-iana-01.txt. > We would like to publish this document ASAP so we can start > referring to it and get IANA moving on the required registries. > > The last call will end in two weeks (September 16th). Please send any > comments to this list. > > Thanks, > Acee > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Wed Sep 21 13:32:08 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EI8S0-00022D-GY for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:32:08 -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 NAA06655 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:32:07 -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 <9.010F5F2E@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:32:03 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 86170487 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:32:03 -0400 Received: from 209.119.0.34 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:32:03 -0400 Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.1.45) by grape.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1b) with SMTP id <14.00596EF5@grape.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:32:02 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:32:01 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Ali Alwan Subject: OSPF Questions To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Reference to Jeff Doyle's book (Routing TCP/IP Volume I); we can configur a primary and multiple secondary addresses on a physical interface of a router (which creates one primary and multiple secondary sub-interfaces). When we configure OSPF on secondary addresses (sub-interfaces), it follows the following two rules: 1. The OSPF must be configured on the primary sub-interface. 2. The OSPF treats secondary sub-interfaces as stubnetworks, that is it does not send Hello messages on the secondary sub-interface and consequently does not build adjacencies. Questions are: 1. Is the above a standard behaviour of OSPF? because I couldn't find this issued discussed in John Moy's book. 2. What prevents OSPF from configuring sub-interfaces as a network of choice, for example a broadcast network; other than the messaging overhead in building multiple adjacencies on the single physical interface? I will really appreicate your insight on this issue. Thanks. From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Wed Sep 21 18:07:39 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EICkd-0003mZ-Io for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:07:39 -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 SAA05449 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grape.ease.lsoft.com (209.119.0.34) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.010F66AC@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:07:35 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 86210067 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:07:31 -0400 Received: from 171.71.176.71 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:07:31 -0400 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2005 15:07:31 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j8LM7F4f008531 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:07:15 -0400 Received: from [10.82.241.204] ([10.82.241.204]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:07:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2005 22:07:15.0394 (UTC) FILETIME=[D32B8A20:01C5BEF8] Message-ID: <4331D98F.8020705@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:07:11 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: OSPF Questions To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ali, Ali Alwan wrote: >Reference to Jeff Doyle's book (Routing TCP/IP Volume I); we can configur >a primary and multiple secondary addresses on a physical interface of a >router (which creates one primary and multiple secondary sub-interfaces). > > Actually, this is incorrect. The configuration of a secondary address doesn't create a sub-interface (at least not in most vendor's terminology). What it creates is a subnet. >When we configure OSPF on secondary addresses (sub-interfaces), it follows >the following two rules: >1. The OSPF must be configured on the primary sub-interface. >2. The OSPF treats secondary sub-interfaces as stubnetworks, that is it >does not send Hello messages on the secondary sub-interface and >consequently does not build adjacencies. > >Questions are: > >1. Is the above a standard behaviour of OSPF? because I couldn't find this >issued discussed in John Moy's book. > > Some implementations have chosen to limit an OSPF transit interface to using the primary address. Secondary addresses are then advertised as stub networks. >2. What prevents OSPF from configuring sub-interfaces as a network of >choice, for example a broadcast network; other than the messaging overhead >in building multiple adjacencies on the single physical interface. > RFC 2328 doesn't preclude this. > I will really appreicate your insight on this issue. Thanks. > > > Hope this helps, Acee From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Wed Sep 28 19:34:41 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKlRh-0000SZ-SK for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:34:41 -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 TAA21142 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:34:38 -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 <19.010FE5D9@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:34:36 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 86738477 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:34:33 -0400 Received: from 207.17.137.119 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:34:33 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO alpha.jnpr.net) (172.24.18.126) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2005 16:34:33 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,147,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="502542372:sNHT20474228" Received: from photon.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.198]) by alpha.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:34:32 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thread-Topic: OSPF sham link Thread-Index: AcW6+u6gERZNVEzGQPmtIbYSc/rfdgJiEgow X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2005 23:34:32.0936 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DE14680:01C5C485] Message-ID: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A2506F6@photon.jnpr.net> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:34:32 -0700 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Kalyan Bade Subject: OSPF sham link Comments: cc: Yakov Rekhter To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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? Thanks, Kalyan. From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Wed Sep 28 23:04:50 2005 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 ; 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 ; 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 Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: OSPF sham link To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A2506F6@photon.jnpr.net> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: 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. > > > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Fri Sep 30 12:48:11 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELO3O-0001cl-UR for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:48:11 -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 MAA20470 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:48:08 -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 <3.0110031E@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:48:07 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 86916325 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:48:06 -0400 Received: from 207.17.137.120 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:48:04 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO beta.jnpr.net) (172.24.18.109) by kremlin.juniper.net with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2005 09:48:04 -0700 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,147,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="484539136:sNHT21101100" Received: from photon.jnpr.net ([172.24.18.198]) by beta.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:48:03 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thread-Topic: OSPF sham link Thread-Index: AcXEopZKYc6Kb0pATlSM4QLjxr9FawBOxXAQ X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2005 16:48:03.0895 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9B47470:01C5C5DE] Message-ID: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A250706@photon.jnpr.net> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:48:02 -0700 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Kalyan Bade Subject: Re: OSPF sham link To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Acee, > 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. Thanks for the response. I understand what you are saying, but isn't a purely implementation thing? If we do this, we end up loosing connectivity to the loopback from other routers. This might be not desirable in some scenarios. Aren't we restricting something just because implementations cannot deal with it? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Kalyan. From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Fri Sep 30 12:58:58 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELODq-0004PG-L7 for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:58:58 -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 MAA20952 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:58:56 -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 <13.011002F6@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:58:56 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 86916823 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:58:56 -0400 Received: from 171.71.176.70 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:58:55 -0400 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2005 09:58:55 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,162,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="662947681:sNHT25184528" Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j8UGwK4x015689 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:58:48 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.67] ([10.21.97.195]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:58:47 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Macintosh/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A250706@photon.jnpr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2005 16:58:47.0945 (UTC) FILETIME=[3996AF90:01C5C5E0] Message-ID: <433D6EC6.9060802@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:58:46 -0700 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Padma Pillay-Esnault Subject: Re: OSPF sham link To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A250706@photon.jnpr.net> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kalyan Kalyan Bade wrote: >Acee, > > > >>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. >> >> > >Thanks for the response. I understand what you are saying, but isn't a >purely implementation thing? If we do this, we end up loosing >connectivity to the loopback from other routers. This might be not >desirable in some scenarios. Aren't we restricting something just >because implementations cannot deal with it? Let me know your thoughts. > > > One of the premise was that the Sham-link end-point address is not in the OSPF domain. Does the sham-link endpoint have to be the loop-back address ? It is always possible to have multiple loopback addresses and not to put that loopback address in OSPF no ? Just my 2 cts Padma >Thanks, >Kalyan. > > > From owner-ospf@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Fri Sep 30 13:31:37 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELOjR-0004JY-Rl for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:37 -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 NAA22152 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:33 -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 <9.01100313@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:34 -0400 Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 86920071 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:32 -0400 Received: from 171.71.176.70 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:32 -0400 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2005 10:31:32 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,162,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="662957833:sNHT24817216" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j8UHUo5U003640 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:28 -0400 Received: from [10.82.242.37] ([10.82.242.37]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:28 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A250706@photon.jnpr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2005 17:31:28.0182 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9FB1D60:01C5C5E4] Message-ID: <433D766F.4010501@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:31:27 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing List Sender: Mailing List From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: OSPF sham link To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM In-Reply-To: <062B922B6EC55149B5A267ECE78E5D440A250706@photon.jnpr.net> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kalyan Bade wrote: >Acee, > > > >>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. >> >> > >Thanks for the response. I understand what you are saying, but isn't a >purely implementation thing? If we do this, we end up loosing >connectivity to the loopback from other routers. This might be not >desirable in some scenarios. Aren't we restricting something just >because implementations cannot deal with it? Let me know your thoughts. > > Hi Kalyan, This draft broke new ground since it documented specific mechanisms for both protocol redistribution and protocol interaction. Prior to the draft, these topics were pretty much left to the implemenations (at least in the case of OSPF). In order to ensure interoperability, these topics needed to be documented. Like any problem, there are multiple ways in solve it and different tradeoffs that can be made. Given the number of reviews and last calls on the draft, I'd say there would need to be a pretty compelling reason in order to change this now. Thanks, Acee >Thanks, >Kalyan. > > >