From neilcalyx@ns.sympatico.ca Tue Jul 1 09:16:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DA03A69B3 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:16:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.896 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.665, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63+tgRLONwoo for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts52-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts52.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824BA3A6861 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca ([67.69.240.39]) by tomts52-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20080701161629.HMZX1589.tomts52-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:16:29 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEADfsaUjR4q/5/2dsb2JhbACBOIgmpCc Received: from tofep1.bellnexxia.net (HELO smtp.bellnexxia.net) ([209.226.175.249]) by toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca with SMTP; 01 Jul 2008 12:16:13 -0400 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.11 (webedge20-101-194-20030622) X-Originating-IP: [203.177.74.141] From: CLAIMS OFFICE Reply-To: mrpinkettclaims1@btinternet.com Organization: CLAIMS OFFICE To: Subject: Congratulations Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:16:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <20080701161629.HMZX1589.tomts52-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca> Contact Mr.Pinkett for the claim of =A31,000,000 pounds which youhave won= in UK NATIONAL LOTTERY. Provide your Names, Address,Age,Occupation,Tel,C= ountry Send: mrpinkettclaims1@btinternet.com From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 3 14:19:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE0B3A6CEC; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:19:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6153A68DC; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:19:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qj18jg-IBwLC; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bosco.isi.edu (bosco.isi.edu [128.9.168.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9EA3A680E; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 6A59113C030; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:18:23 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20080703211823.6A59113C030@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ospf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] RFC 5250 on The OSPF Opaque LSA Option X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5250 Title: The OSPF Opaque LSA Option Author: L. Berger, I. Bryskin, A. Zinin, R. Coltun Status: Standards Track Date: July 2008 Mailbox: lberger@labn.net, ibryskin@advaoptical.com, alex.zinin@alcatel-lucent.com Pages: 17 Characters: 37657 Obsoletes: RFC2370 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-05.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5250.txt This document defines enhancements to the OSPF protocol to support a new class of link state advertisements (LSAs) called Opaque LSAs. Opaque LSAs provide a generalized mechanism to allow for the future extensibility of OSPF. Opaque LSAs consist of a standard LSA header followed by application-specific information. The information field may be used directly by OSPF or by other applications. Standard OSPF link-state database flooding mechanisms are used to distribute Opaque LSAs to all or some limited portion of the OSPF topology. This document replaces RFC 2370 and adds to it a mechanism to enable an OSPF router to validate Autonomous System (AS)-scope Opaque LSAs originated outside of the router's OSPF area. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From drbcw_109@earthlink.net Fri Jul 4 06:34:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81ECF3A6B6A for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 06:34:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.678 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OnH97rb3ouwr for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 06:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08873A6B47 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 06:34:42 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=kF3OmAwnikn/LSAZXnnKB5bmgw59YaiXUSYKrvp84r0LOIiBku40UIg25DhXZXri; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [209.86.224.47] (helo=elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KElQU-0003c7-5z; Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:34:14 -0400 Received: from 41.203.225.28 by webmail.earthlink.net with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:34:13 -0400 Message-ID: <6097798.1215178453992.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:34:13 +0000 (GMT+00:00) From: Dr B Candy Williams Reply-To: Dr B Candy Williams Subject: REQUEST FOR PARTNERSHIP NEEDED Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: EarthLink Zoo Mail 1.0 X-ELNK-Trace: 5d6cc9901fd8ee16fa747de3e47b93b77e972de0d01da94009b9b812513f83aa481c4be2497926e0350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 209.86.224.47 To: undisclosed-recipients:; REQUEST FOR PARTNERSHIP NEEDED FROM DR BENNAD.C.WILLIAMS BANK OF AFRICA.(BOA) OUAGADOUGOU -BURKINA-FASO. Bp 82 ZANGOTE YENUGUA 02 4587 Reply me here please. Email: drben.cw2010@gmail.com Dear Friend, This message might meet you in utmost surprise, Meanwhile i have sent you this mail before but i did not see your respond i belive that you did not recived it so i have to send it to you again. However, it's just my urgent need for a foreignpartner that made me to contact you for this transaction.I am a banker by profession from Burkina faso in west Africa and currently holding the post of Director Auditing and Accounting unit of the bank.I have the opportunity of transfering the left over funds ($11.5million) of one of my bank clients who died along with his entire family on 31july 2000 in a plane crash.You can confirm the genuiness of the deceased death by clicking on this web site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/859479.stm Hence,i am inviting you for a business deal where this money can be shared between us in the ratio of 60/30while 10% will be mapped out for expenses.If you agree to my business proposal, further details of the transfer will be forwarded to you assoon as i receive your return mail.have a great day. yours, Dr Bennad.C.Williams. Send your Reply to my new email address. Email: drben.cw2010@gmail.com From c.schmitt@a-n-a.de Sat Jul 5 06:49:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A321A3A6869; Sat, 5 Jul 2008 06:49:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -60.384 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-60.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FS_REPLICA=0.994, FS_REPLICAWATCH=10.357, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, REPLICA_WATCH=3.396, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qM-oFJ9cdXxO; Sat, 5 Jul 2008 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc-59-1-104-200.cm.vtr.net (pc-59-1-104-200.cm.vtr.net [200.104.1.59]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D7E2B3A6839; Sat, 5 Jul 2008 06:49:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 6.44.168.84 by smtp.200.104.1.59; Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:49:21 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Jose Mcgraw" Reply-To: "Jose Mcgraw" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Famous replica watches rolex Cartier Bvlgari Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:49:21 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit If the only thing standing between you and a luxurious Cartier watch is money, then today is your lucky day! Prestige Replicas, the world-famous replica watches dealer, is offering a 15% discount during these spring months for two or more watches, making their whole Cartier collection even more affordable. http://Laverneruhiro.blogspot.com/ As you are probably aware of, Prestige Replicas has one of the most extensive collections of Cartier replica watches in the whole wide web. Who cares if they are not legitimate? These replicas are of such high quality that not even a connoisseur would be able to distinguish them from an original Cartier. And with their online delivery guarantee you will be enjoying your new watch in just a couple of days! So, what are you waiting for? Visit Prestige Replicas today! http://Laverneruhiro.blogspot.com/ From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 8 16:17:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC2B3A6B25; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:17:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA0B28C380 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:17:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BuGy6PxQirP4 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759183A6B25 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:17:16 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,326,1212364800"; d="scan'208";a="85905172" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2008 23:17:27 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m68NHRM7028438 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:17:27 -0700 Received: from [171.70.225.239] (dhcp-171-70-225-239.cisco.com [171.70.225.239]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m68NHQVp009066 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:17:26 GMT Message-ID: <4873F585.20803@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:17:25 -0700 From: Abhay Roy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ospf@ietf.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=189; t=1215559047; x=1216423047; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=akr@cisco.com; z=From:=20Abhay=20Roy=20 |Subject:=20Dublin=20OSPF=20meeting=20cancelled |Sender:=20; bh=rLCJkxek2TPuEQ6rSKQmYAThWn1grTBw9jUNnn4XZNU=; b=FjhR8qmbq6MEfN/BUj8zKEDikv6Co0YV9yZQDnoPWhuF+VcteOWlkRKvqg FyUMpp3phMt1klRdj0ky6pIG1o9JNoneVEGbki/5kA1J9nSYy4ZZecv02VXl CUd48W9qkL; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=akr@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [OSPF] Dublin OSPF meeting cancelled X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org There wasn't much of an agenda for Dublin meeting and a few open items requires more discussion on the mailing list. So we have cancelled the Dublin meeting. Regards, Abhay & Acee _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From mike.osulivan@sympatico.ca Thu Jul 10 07:07:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A963A6A2C for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:07:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cGSFkcexfKCV for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts29-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts29.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.103]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBF33A68B7 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toip36-bus.srvr.bell.ca ([67.69.240.37]) by tomts29-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20080710140804.KQNW1721.tomts29-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip36-bus.srvr.bell.ca>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:08:04 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak+vAIOydUjR4q+H/2dsb2JhbACJZ4E8oFk Received: from tofep3.bellnexxia.net (HELO smtp.bellnexxia.net) ([209.226.175.135]) by toip36-bus.srvr.bell.ca with SMTP; 10 Jul 2008 10:07:40 -0400 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.11 (webedge20-101-194-20030622) X-Originating-IP: [200.189.79.38] From: Claims Offices Reply-To: mr.royphilclaimdept@btinternet.com To: Subject: Congratulation ***You Have Won*** Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:07:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20080710140804.KQNW1721.tomts29-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip36-bus.srvr.bell.ca> Your Email ID won 1,000,000 GBP in our annual Draw. Contact Mr Roy Phil. (mr.royphilclaimsdept08@btinternet.com) for claims Claims Form 1.full name: 2.Home Address: 3.Age: Regards From jmclancy@nf.sympatico.ca Fri Jul 11 20:12:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEF03A688D for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:12:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.22 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Tu8V+CHPQky for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts37-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts37-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.94]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADCE3A686A for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca ([67.69.240.39]) by tomts37-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20080712031241.NQWE1724.tomts37-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca>; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:12:41 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am1YAO68d0jR4q+H/2dsb2JhbACBN4ly Received: from tofep3.bellnexxia.net (HELO smtp.bellnexxia.net) ([209.226.175.135]) by toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca with SMTP; 11 Jul 2008 23:12:41 -0400 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.11 (webedge20-101-194-20030622) X-Originating-IP: [189.10.167.44] From: CLAIMS OFFICE Reply-To: harrybricksdept003@yahoo.ie Organization: CLAIMS OFFICE To: Subject: You Are A Certified Winner Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:12:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20080712031241.NQWE1724.tomts37-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca> Your Email ID won 1,000,000 GBP in our annual Draw. Contact Mr.Harry Bricks (harrybricksdept02@btinternet.com) for claims Claims Form 1.Full name: 2.Home Address: 3.Occupation: 4.Tel: From refunds@IRS.gov Tue Jul 15 05:56:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA923A67A6 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:56:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -90.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-90.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_50=0.001, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, J_CHICKENPOX_71=0.6, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, TRACKER_ID=2.003, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRqq3ojsu46Z for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pcplusltd.com (www.pcplusltd.com [207.99.40.126]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C1A3A6833 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User [67.205.91.201] by pcplusltd.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.10) id AE83E0300F6; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:56:35 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: Second Notice : Tax Refund ID JXBYSIHZBD Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:56:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <200807150856760.SM02736@User> To: undisclosed-recipients:; Dear Applicant: After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Tax refund value is $292.70.Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 3-6 days in order to IWP the data received. -If you distribute funds to other organization, your records must show wether they are exempt under section 497 (c) (15). In cases where the recipient org. is not exempt under section 497 (c) (15), you must have evidence the funds will be used for section 497 (c) (15) purposes. -If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep case histories showing the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the award; the maner of section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of your officers, directors, trustees, members, or major contributors. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here (or please copy/paste the link below in your browser) : http://www.sapporo-park.or.jp:8080/Tax_Redirect/IRS.gov/index.php This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue Service,a bureau of the Department of the Treasury. ______________________________________________________________________________ Note: -If you received this message in your SPAM/BULK folder, that is because of the restrictions implemented by your ISP - For security reasons, we will record your ip address, the date and time. -Deliberate wrong imputs are criminally pursued and indicted. © Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. Tax ID : ETOIEYJLPZOBYJPHKNUISUCDWHJPQEYHYMEXZV From refunds@IRS.gov Tue Jul 15 06:32:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5036F3A6982 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -90.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-90.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_50=0.001, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_71=0.6, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, TRACKER_ID=2.003, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s2ezlDeFpODa for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.arkenvirotech.ca (ark.deltatee.com [207.54.116.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA403A686A for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User (ip-67-205-91-201.static.privatedns.com [67.205.91.201]) by www.arkenvirotech.ca with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:56:41 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: Second Notice : Tax Refund ID KPMNTPKSOF Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:56:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080715133249.4EA403A686A@core3.amsl.com> To: undisclosed-recipients:; Dear Applicant: After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Tax refund value is $292.70.Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 3-6 days in order to IWP the data received. -If you distribute funds to other organization, your records must show wether they are exempt under section 497 (c) (15). In cases where the recipient org. is not exempt under section 497 (c) (15), you must have evidence the funds will be used for section 497 (c) (15) purposes. -If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep case histories showing the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the award; the maner of section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of your officers, directors, trustees, members, or major contributors. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here (or please copy/paste the link below in your browser) : http://www.sapporo-park.or.jp:8080/Tax_Redirect/IRS.gov/index.php This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue Service,a bureau of the Department of the Treasury. ______________________________________________________________________________ Note: -If you received this message in your SPAM/BULK folder, that is because of the restrictions implemented by your ISP - For security reasons, we will record your ip address, the date and time. -Deliberate wrong imputs are criminally pursued and indicted. © Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. Tax ID : LDYSFWUBYDIQKEZUPLEMNXDTIYRWLXUCYHKBUP From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 15 17:43:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DE43A691E; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:43:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCF83A67AF for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:43:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.123 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jOFJmGyPivT for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E8713A6782 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m6G0hmgR008563; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:43:48 +0100 Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6G0hkqV008555; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:43:47 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c8e6dc$ffa27690$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <20080611190002.04D7A3A6861@core3.amsl.com> <00f001c8cc25$ca146690$d106a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:43:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Subject: [OSPF] draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-01.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, This draft was going to be discussed in the OSPF working group in Dublin, but you are not meeting this time around. I think this draft is pretty much ready. Does anyone have any issues or comments before we launch a WG last call jointly in the L1VPN and OSPF WGs? Cheers, Adrian > Title : OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery > Author(s) : L. Berger > Filename : draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-01.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2008-06-25 > > This document defines an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 3 > based Layer-1 Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) auto-discovery > mechanism. This document parallels the existing OSPF version 2 L1VPN > auto-discovery mechanism. The notable functional difference is the > support of IPv6. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-01.txt _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From hr.publicnotice@live.co.uk Wed Jul 16 19:16:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154F33A69CD for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:16:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char DC hex): X-Mailer: U.\334.WebMail Servis[...] X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.013 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_TR=0.935, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHaAys3QucRV for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uludag.edu.tr (mail.uludag.edu.tr [193.140.245.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EA1033A6998 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mppd (uludag.edu.tr [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9503F172F0F; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:49:13 +0300 (EEST) Received: from uludag.edu.tr (uludag.edu.tr [127.0.0.1]) by mail.uludag.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64F51724B8; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:49:12 +0300 (EEST) From: "British Petroleum Board" Reply-To: human.resourcesgroups@googlemail.com Subject: MESSAGE FROM THE BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY UK, PETROLEUM DEPT., TREAT AS A MATTER OF URGENCY Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:49:12 -0400 Message-Id: <20080717014913.M10235@live.co.uk> X-Mailer: U.Ü.WebMail Servisi 2.51 20050228 X-OriginatingIP: 78.138.0.102 (parasite) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Scanned-By: MPP/Cloudmark http://www.messagepartners.com X-Scanned-By: This message was scanned by MPP v.3 (www.messagepartners.com) X-Scanned-By: MPP/Nod32 http://www.messagepartners.com BP JOB ALERT Ref No:01/007/HRD/BPPLC British Petroleum Company wishes to announce to the general public about if 2ND Quota Recruitment excise which is currently going on now.For our three (3)newly commissioned offices around United Kingdom. This vacancies are to fill up the offices of our newly opened branches in the UK Resourceful applicant with qualified Grad/Result should forward all qualification to the office of the Human Resources Officer for Screening. Stated Below is the full details to the HRD: Officer:Mr.Anderson Spencer Head Human Resources Officer Email: human.resourcesgroups@googlemail.com Do contact the department with an update of your resume. Qualified Applicant will be invited to London for their interview after screening. Regards, HR Department British Petroleum Company UK From hr.publicnotice@live.co.uk Wed Jul 16 20:03:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378333A698B for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:03:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: <65ylCWoFRude> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char DC hex): X-Mailer: U.\334.WebMail Servis[...] X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.013 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_TR=0.935, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65ylCWoFRude for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uludag.edu.tr (uludag.edu.tr [193.140.245.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 00C9D3A6962 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mppd (uludag.edu.tr [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0683818045B; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:52:33 +0300 (EEST) Received: from uludag.edu.tr (uludag.edu.tr [127.0.0.1]) by mail.uludag.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946BA180384; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:46:02 +0300 (EEST) From: "British Petroleum Board" Reply-To: human.resourcesgroups@googlemail.com Subject: MESSAGE FROM THE BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY UK, PETROLEUM DEPT., TREAT AS A MATTER OF URGENCY Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:46:02 -0400 Message-Id: <20080717024603.M29052@live.co.uk> X-Mailer: U.Ü.WebMail Servisi 2.51 20050228 X-OriginatingIP: 78.138.0.102 (parasite) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Scanned-By: MPP/Cloudmark http://www.messagepartners.com X-Scanned-By: This message was scanned by MPP v.3 (www.messagepartners.com) X-Scanned-By: MPP/Nod32 http://www.messagepartners.com BP JOB ALERT Ref No:01/007/HRD/BPPLC British Petroleum Company wishes to announce to the general public about if 2ND Quota Recruitment excise which is currently going on now.For our three (3)newly commissioned offices around United Kingdom. This vacancies are to fill up the offices of our newly opened branches in the UK Resourceful applicant with qualified Grad/Result should forward all qualification to the office of the Human Resources Officer for Screening. Stated Below is the full details to the HRD: Officer:Mr.Anderson Spencer Head Human Resources Officer Email: human.resourcesgroups@googlemail.com Do contact the department with an update of your resume. Qualified Applicant will be invited to London for their interview after screening. Regards, HR Department British Petroleum Company UK From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 18 08:14:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D7C28C157; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:14:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AC028C157 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:14:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.744 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.744 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.854, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uuQtwHioplhP for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com (qb-out-0506.google.com [72.14.204.228]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D52E3A6AD8 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id q18so2057368qba.41 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:15:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=bm7nmBUKYGvZ1urg6bcDK7jWldr39KlmeR3i4OBfpR0=; b=c5O/WrQMfh8GNpF33WLvb6q2RYw0XA2YkUcvvxbh0IvAT0gKDzVSAPzK1teqDvPLAv RwEXvZu4q5Bldi4LT2nvluJOI9HGYs7MKVJ70kfwCGDVPgUVodFKJqBSIm0pbwIHyJta NskORkqqfKB5syKaBTRyKD1wFaBjAtdxwaNnI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=P1NVF3vFMAD7gTOB6qoRHCnWvLbMsShO7WB58XowxNaOobBBZnfHuMnx7GBuue1Q7Z Gz0WdvmSVrSPT1e6GihaZNyLsc3OFxAM+qYtd0Pz2hwMVKO+Gs5MiB/7rN0swvrfpxW1 wVwnaodUK9RL1GHzEEfyVEFom3/4uPvEpkbbo= Received: by 10.142.214.11 with SMTP id m11mr90986wfg.95.1216394130010; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.165.12 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:15:29 -0400 From: "Varghese John" To: ospf@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OSPF] Options field in hello packet with regard to Opaque capability X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0783776982==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0783776982== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_66509_32811531.1216394129946" ------=_Part_66509_32811531.1216394129946 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hello, I am trying to find the standard way to specify the opaque LSA capability in the OSPF packets. RFC 2370, which describes the opaque option (section 3.1). "An opaque-capable router learns of its neighbor's opaque capability at the beginning of the "Database Exchange Process" (see Section 10.6 of [OSPF], receiving Database Description packets from a neighbor in state ExStart). A neighbor is opaque-capable if and only if it sets the O-bit in the Options field of its Database Description packets; the O-bit is not set in packets other than Database Description packets. Then, in the next step of the Database Exchange process, Opaque LSAs are included in the Database summary list that is sent to the neighbor (see Sections 3.2 below and 10.3 of [OSPF]) if and only if the neighbor is opaque capable." This specifies Opaque option is set only in database description packet. RFC 5250, which describes the opaque option (section 3.1). "An opaque-capable router learns of its neighbor's opaque capability at the beginning of the "Database Exchange Process" (see Section 10.6 of [OSPF ] regarding receiving Database Description packets from a neighbor in state ExStart). A neighbor is opaque-capable if and only if it sets the O-bit in the Options field of its Database Description packets; the O-bit SHOULD NOT be set and MUST be ignored when received in packets other than Database Description packets. Using the O-bit in OSPF packets other than Database Description packets will result in interoperability issues. The setting of the O-bit is a "SHOULD NOT" rather than a "MUST NOT" to remain compatible with earlier specifications." Here I understand some implementations have the opaque option set in other than the database descripiton packet. Would some one tell me which specifications has the Opaque LSA options set in other fields??? And also do we need to specify the Opaque LSA capability in the hello packet options field?? thanks -varghese ------=_Part_66509_32811531.1216394129946 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Hello,
  I am trying to find the standard way to specify the opaque LSA capability in the OSPF packets.

RFC 2370, which describes the opaque option (section 3.1).

   "An opaque-capable router learns of its neighbor's opaque capability
   at the beginning of the "Database Exchange Process" (see Section 10.6
   of [OSPF], receiving Database Description packets from a neighbor in
   state ExStart). A neighbor is opaque-capable if and only if it sets
   the O-bit in the Options field of its Database Description packets;
   the O-bit is not set in packets other than Database Description
   packets.  Then, in the next step of the Database Exchange process,
   Opaque LSAs are included in the Database summary list that is sent to
   the neighbor (see Sections 3.2 below and 10.3 of [OSPF]) if and only
   if the neighbor is opaque capable."

   This specifies Opaque option is set only in database description packet.

RFC 5250, which describes the opaque option (section 3.1).

   "An opaque-capable router learns of its neighbor's opaque capability
   at the beginning of the "Database Exchange Process" (see Section 10.6

   of [OSPF] regarding receiving Database Description packets from a
   neighbor in state ExStart).  A neighbor is opaque-capable if and only

   if it sets the O-bit in the Options field of its Database Description
   packets; the O-bit SHOULD NOT be set and MUST be ignored when
   received in packets other than Database Description packets.  Using
   the O-bit in OSPF packets other than Database Description packets

   will result in interoperability issues.  The setting of the O-bit is
   a "SHOULD NOT" rather than a "MUST NOT" to remain compatible with
   earlier specifications."


   Here I understand some implementations have the opaque option set in other than the database descripiton packet.


   Would some one tell me which specifications has the Opaque LSA options set in other fields???
   And also do we need to specify the Opaque LSA capability in the hello packet options field?? 



thanks

-varghese

------=_Part_66509_32811531.1216394129946-- --===============0783776982== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --===============0783776982==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 18 08:31:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628A13A6B09; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:31:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79E03A6B19 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:31:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJDMvYHrt2NS for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AE43A6B09 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8852681CB57; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00555-07; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D614B81CB55; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:32:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-Id: <9D981A34-8306-4253-AA57-05D194702C27@redback.com> From: Acee Lindem Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:31:59 -0400 To: "Varghese John" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Options field in hello packet with regard to Opaque capability X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0635173613==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0635173613== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9--282765195 --Apple-Mail-9--282765195 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi John, See inline. On Jul 18, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Varghese John wrote: > Hello, > I am trying to find the standard way to specify the opaque LSA > capability in the OSPF packets. > > RFC 2370, which describes the opaque option (section 3.1). > > "An opaque-capable router learns of its neighbor's opaque > capability > at the beginning of the "Database Exchange Process" (see Section > 10.6 > of [OSPF], receiving Database Description packets from a > neighbor in > state ExStart). A neighbor is opaque-capable if and only if it sets > the O-bit in the Options field of its Database Description packets; > the O-bit is not set in packets other than Database Description > packets. Then, in the next step of the Database Exchange process, > Opaque LSAs are included in the Database summary list that is > sent to > the neighbor (see Sections 3.2 below and 10.3 of [OSPF]) if and > only > if the neighbor is opaque capable." > > This specifies Opaque option is set only in database description > packet. > > RFC 5250, which describes the opaque option (section 3.1). > > "An opaque-capable router learns of its neighbor's opaque > capability > at the beginning of the "Database Exchange Process" (see Section > 10.6 > > of [OSPF] regarding receiving Database Description packets from a > neighbor in state ExStart). A neighbor is opaque-capable if and > only > > if it sets the O-bit in the Options field of its Database > Description > packets; the O-bit SHOULD NOT be set and MUST be ignored when > received in packets other than Database Description packets. Using > the O-bit in OSPF packets other than Database Description packets > > will result in interoperability issues. The setting of the O- > bit is > a "SHOULD NOT" rather than a "MUST NOT" to remain compatible with > earlier specifications." > > > Here I understand some implementations have the opaque option > set in other than the database descripiton packet. Correct - and others don't set the O-bit in other OSPF packet types. We had a discussion about this on the list while the draft was in review. Our conclusion was that the O-bit really only needed to be set in the options field for Database Exchange packets. I might have left this alone if I were doing the update but the authors felt the RFC 2370 ambiguity needed to be cleared up. Everyone has agreed on the current text which allows backward compatibility. > > > > Would some one tell me which specifications has the Opaque LSA > options set in other fields??? > And also do we need to specify the Opaque LSA capability in the > hello packet options field?? By "earlier specifications", it refers to RFC 2370 which was ambiguous on the setting of the O-bit in packets other than Database Exchange packets. Thanks, Acee > > > > > thanks > > -varghese > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --Apple-Mail-9--282765195 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi John,
See inline.=A0

On Jul 18, 2008, at = 11:15 AM, Varghese John wrote:

Hello,
=A0 I am trying to find the standard way to = specify the opaque LSA capability in the OSPF packets.

RFC 2370, = which describes the opaque option (section 3.1).

=A0=A0 "An = opaque-capable router learns of its neighbor's opaque capability
=A0=A0= at the beginning of the "Database Exchange Process" (see Section = 10.6
=A0=A0 of [OSPF], receiving Database Description packets from a = neighbor in
=A0=A0 state ExStart). A neighbor is opaque-capable if = and only if it sets
=A0=A0 the O-bit in the Options field of its = Database Description packets;
=A0=A0 the O-bit is not set in packets = other than Database Description
=A0=A0 packets.=A0 Then, in the next = step of the Database Exchange process,
=A0=A0 Opaque LSAs are = included in the Database summary list that is sent to
=A0=A0 the = neighbor (see Sections 3.2 below and 10.3 of [OSPF]) if and only
=A0=A0= if the neighbor is opaque capable."

=A0=A0 This specifies Opaque = option is set only in database description packet.

RFC 5250, = which describes the opaque option (section 3.1).

   "An opaque-capable router learns of its neighbor's =
opaque capability
   at the beginning of the "Database Exchange =
Process" (see Section =
10.6

   of [OSPF] regarding receiving =
Database Description packets from a
   neighbor in state ExStart).  A =
neighbor is opaque-capable if and only

   if it sets the O-bit in the Options field of its Database =
Description
   packets; the O-bit SHOULD NOT be set and MUST be =
ignored when
   received in packets other than Database Description =
packets.  Using
   the O-bit in OSPF packets other than Database =
Description packets

   will result in interoperability issues.  The setting of the O-bit =
is
   a "SHOULD NOT" rather than a "MUST NOT" to remain compatible =
with
   earlier specifications."


   Here I understand some =
implementations have the opaque option set in other than the database =
descripiton packet.
Correct - and others = don't set the O-bit in other OSPF packet types. We had a discussion = about this on the list while the draft was in review. Our conclusion was = that the O-bit really only needed to be set in the options field for = Database Exchange packets. I might have left this alone if I were doing = the update but the authors felt the RFC 2370 ambiguity needed to be = cleared up. Everyone has agreed on the current text which allows = backward compatibility.=A0




   Would some one tell me which specifications has the Opaque LSA =
options set in other fields???
   And also do we need to specify the =
Opaque LSA capability in the hello packet options field?? =

By "earlier = specifications", it refers to RFC 2370 which was ambiguous on the = setting of the O-bit in packets other than Database Exchange = packets.=A0

Thanks,
Acee=A0
<= br>





thanks

-varghese

OSPF mailing list
=

= --Apple-Mail-9--282765195-- --===============0635173613== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --===============0635173613==-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 21 10:36:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBBE3A689C; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7307C3A689C for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:36:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.671 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.927, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pDnfLvWZY5zx for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com (qb-out-0506.google.com [72.14.204.239]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727913A67A8 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:36:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id q18so4795247qba.41 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:37:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=6y7EdBoySnHlitPMzVwcdL2q/cd6hiTCSRcPmE3TKek=; b=iIUB8ga+c5eWqiliFRBsQO+HVOJ3Md9khae/H84bwKEWfADGWwADJXWJxGgRPFCNOc ssypQkWe09MT+BKhNv3UC6/b3PR3fQ78RxJM3bdy9DeKJ3yotakRi3YEbPj/c5YIvcp6 rPf/KW5uJuKRVQv2UTg066W9Ws9e6uC5uYdBA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=GXCSic1EM2nxzuPKFFps51XWr72oB33wF2it6EupMUCjb3BTKZAE3e5uGTA2xdxWGO NtotqLFLtrEyUgDlDnYGjM8UQ4uFWS4auirMAiHpywx+N8VhH0SR/nWIrNbhzYw4n2nx bPV8z5YOI7fyvEEW2lGake9aG84Wvd2bDm1Rk= Received: by 10.143.159.9 with SMTP id l9mr1441496wfo.100.1216661852764; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.165.12 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:37:32 -0400 From: "Varghese John" To: ospf@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OSPF] Same subnet and Nested subnet OSPF interfaces in OSPFv2 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1197778214==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1197778214== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_98600_16180486.1216661852771" ------=_Part_98600_16180486.1216661852771 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hello, I am trying to find whether any OSPF deployments have the use case of having more than one OSPF interface on the same subnet or nested subnets. It would be good to know the following - 1. Any use case on having multiple OSPF interface with same subnet over multiple physical networks. 2. Any use case on having multiple OSPF interface with nested/overlapping subnets over multiple physical networks. 3. Any use case on having mulitple OSPF interface with same subnet over mulitple logical interfaces ( the logical interface may point to same physical/Layer 2 network). 4. Any use case on having mulitple OSPF interface with nested/overlapping subnets over mulitple logical interfaces ( the logical interface may point to same physical/Layer 2 network). Any thoughts and helps would be greatly appreciated. thanks -varghese ------=_Part_98600_16180486.1216661852771 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Hello,
  I am trying to find whether any OSPF deployments have the use case of having more than one OSPF interface on
the same subnet or nested subnets.

  It would be good to know the following -

   1. Any use case on having multiple OSPF interface with same subnet over multiple physical networks.
   2. Any use case on having multiple OSPF interface with nested/overlapping subnets over multiple physical networks.
   3. Any use case on having mulitple OSPF interface with same subnet over mulitple logical interfaces ( the logical interface may point to same
           physical/Layer 2 network).

   4. Any use case on having mulitple OSPF interface with nested/overlapping subnets over mulitple logical interfaces ( the logical interface may point to same
           physical/Layer 2 network).

   Any thoughts and helps would be greatly appreciated.

thanks
-varghese

 

 
------=_Part_98600_16180486.1216661852771-- --===============1197778214== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --===============1197778214==-- From carolines@bellsouth.net Wed Jul 23 11:05:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E6C3A6AE2 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:05:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.606 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_71=0.6, TRACKER_ID=2.003, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LPNdhzFeA46y for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fmailhost02.isp.att.net (fmailhost02.isp.att.net [204.127.217.102]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC62D3A691A for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home1 (adsl-161-34-245.mia.bellsouth.net[74.161.34.245]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc02) with SMTP id <20080723180622H020012mpve>; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:06:23 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [74.161.34.245] Message-ID: <012301c8ecee$d9b44220$6601a8c0@home1> From: "Caroline Shawn Ramgeet" To: Cc: Subject: Notifiction we received Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:06:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_011E_01C8ECCD.520EC690" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_011E_01C8ECCD.520EC690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am sending this email on behalf of Adopt-A-Village In Guatemala. We = received an email (copy below in blue) back in June about a refund of = $252.60 and that we should access this form and submit. However, we = have been unable to access this form and would like to know what we can = do to get this processed. From: notice@IRS.gov Reply-to: do-not-reply@IRS.gov Sent: 6/16/2008 10:08:13 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time Subj: Tax Refund : $252.60 Dear Applicant: =20 =20 =20 After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have = determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund under section = 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Tax refund value is = $252.60.Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 3-6 days in = order to IWP the data received. -If you distribute funds to other organization, your records must show = wether they are exempt under section 497 (c) (15). In cases where the = recipient org. is not exempt under section 497 (c) (15), you must have = evidence the funds will be used for section 497 (c) (15) purposes. =20 -If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep case histories = showing the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the award; the = maner of section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of your = officers, directors, trustees, members, or major contributors.=20 To access the form for your tax refund, please click here (or = please copy/paste the link below in your browser) : =20 http://ppp121-44-211-11.lns1.hba1.internode.on.net:444/Redirect_To_/IRS.g= ov/index.php This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue Service,a = bureau of the Department of the Treasury.=20 =20 _________________________________________________________________________= _____ Note: -If you received this message in your SPAM/BULK folder, that is because = of the restrictions implemented by your ISP - For security reasons, we will record your ip address, the date and = time.=20 -Deliberate wrong imputs are criminally pursued and indicted.=20 =A9 Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. Tax ID : TIHPJDRICPLRMPIJUHDDQOREXMITKDSLJJVPRB Caroline Shawn Cipollone cell: 954-258-3769 email: carolines@bellsouth.net ------=_NextPart_000_011E_01C8ECCD.520EC690 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am sending this email on behalf of=20 Adopt-A-Village In Guatemala.  We received an email (copy below in=20 blue) back in June about a refund of $252.60 and that we should = access this=20 form and submit.  However, we have been unable to access this form = and=20 would like to know what we can do to get this processed.
 
 
 
From: notice@IRS.gov
Reply-to:=20 do-not-reply@IRS.gov
Sent: 6/16/2008 10:08:13 A.M. Pacific Daylight=20 Time
Subj: Tax Refund : $252.60
 

          =    =20        Dear Applicant: 
    =    =20            
      =    =20          
     After the = last annual=20 calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are = eligible to=20 receive a tax refund under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue = Code. Tax=20 refund value is $252.60.Please submit the tax refund request and allow = us 3-6=20 days in order to IWP the data received.


-If you distribute = funds to=20 other organization, your records must show wether they are exempt under = section=20 497 (c) (15). In cases where the recipient org. is not exempt under = section 497=20 (c) (15), you must have evidence the funds will be used for section 497 = (c) (15)=20 purposes.
                =  =20   
-If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep = case=20 histories showing the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the = award;=20 the maner of section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of = your=20 officers, directors,
trustees, members, or major contributors.=20


     To access the form for your tax refund, = please=20 click here (or please copy/paste the link below in your browser) =20 :
    =20
http://ppp121-44-211-11.lns1.hba1.internode.on.net:444/Redirect_To_/I= RS.gov/index.php


 =20    This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue = Service,a=20 bureau of the Department of the Treasury.
    =20

_________________________________________________________________= _____________

  =20 Note:
-If you received this message in your SPAM/BULK folder, that is = because  of the restrictions implemented by your ISP
- For = security=20 reasons, we will record your ip address, the date and time. =
-Deliberate=20 wrong imputs are criminally pursued and indicted.



=A9 = Copyright=20 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A.


Tax ID=20 :

TIHPJDRICPLRMPIJUHDDQOREXMITKDSLJJVPRB
 
 
Caroline Shawn Cipollone
cell:=20 954-258-3769
email:  carolines@bellsouth.net
------=_NextPart_000_011E_01C8ECCD.520EC690-- From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 23 15:50:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E8428C1D0; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:50:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1719228C1C3; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:50:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.091 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KGHSiM+cCFyJ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bosco.isi.edu (bosco.isi.edu [128.9.168.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B65A3A67FE; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 328C51454E6; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:50:59 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20080723225059.328C51454E6@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ospf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] RFC 5340 on OSPF for IPv6 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5340 Title: OSPF for IPv6 Author: R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, J. Moy, A. Lindem Status: Standards Track Date: July 2008 Mailbox: dennis@juniper.net, jmoy@sycamorenet.com, acee@redback.com Pages: 94 Characters: 225664 Obsoletes: RFC2740 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-23.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5340.txt This document describes the modifications to OSPF to support version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). The fundamental mechanisms of OSPF (flooding, Designated Router (DR) election, area support, Short Path First (SPF) calculations, etc.) remain unchanged. However, some changes have been necessary, either due to changes in protocol semantics between IPv4 and IPv6, or simply to handle the increased address size of IPv6. These modifications will necessitate incrementing the protocol version from version 2 to version 3. OSPF for IPv6 is also referred to as OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3). Changes between OSPF for IPv4, OSPF Version 2, and OSPF for IPv6 as described herein include the following. Addressing semantics have been removed from OSPF packets and the basic Link State Advertisements (LSAs). New LSAs have been created to carry IPv6 addresses and prefixes. OSPF now runs on a per-link basis rather than on a per-IP-subnet basis. Flooding scope for LSAs has been generalized. Authentication has been removed from the OSPF protocol and instead relies on IPv6's Authentication Header and Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). Even with larger IPv6 addresses, most packets in OSPF for IPv6 are almost as compact as those in OSPF for IPv4. Most fields and packet- size limitations present in OSPF for IPv4 have been relaxed. In addition, option handling has been made more flexible. All of OSPF for IPv4's optional capabilities, including demand circuit support and Not-So-Stubby Areas (NSSAs), are also supported in OSPF for IPv6. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 23 17:50:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70763A6868; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4A93A6868 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:50:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.327 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_221=2.222] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NDFFgYoARpar for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei-3com.com (unknown [221.12.31.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448B43A6857 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei-3com.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0K4H00MJGJQ1YZ@h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:51:37 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei-3com.com ([172.25.15.132]) by h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0K4H00CDWJQ1QD@h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:51:37 +0800 (CST) Received: from [172.25.15.129] (Forwarded-For: [222.129.48.22]) by h3cmc01-in.huawei-3com.com (mshttpd); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:52:56 +0800 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:52:56 +0800 From: guoqiang 03022 To: ospf@ietf.org Message-id: <40a2a3c3bd.3c3bd40a2a@huawei-3com.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004) Content-language: zh-CN Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: zh-CN Priority: normal Subject: [OSPF] Some questions on RFC3101 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I have some questions on RFC3101,NSSA. (1) As per RFC2328, under section 12.4.4.1: RTA and RTB would originate the same set of AS-external-LSAs. These LSAs, if they specify the same metric, would be functionally equivalent since they would specify the same destination and forwarding address (RTX). This leads to a clear duplication of effort. If only one of RTA or RTB originated the set of AS-external-LSAs, the routing would remain the same, and the size of the link state database would decrease. However, it must be unambiguously defined as to which router originates the LSAs (otherwise neither may, or the identity of the originator may oscillate). The following rule is thereby established: if two routers, both reachable from one another, originate functionally equivalent AS-external-LSAs (i.e., same destination, cost and non-zero forwarding address), then the LSA originated by the router having the highest OSPF Router ID is used. The router having the lower OSPF Router ID can then flush its LSA. Does the translated Type-5 LSAs act the same as above? if so, how can two abrs do the translation together without aggregation? (2) In rfc1587, the Type-7 to Type-5 translation is done according to routes generated by type-7 LSAs, while in rfc3101, the translation is based on Type-7 LSAs. Why this change hanppens? if the abr has a type-7 lsa with P-bit set, but hasn't a type-7 route(maybe inter or none),shall the Type-7 LSA be translated? (3) In Section 2.4 "Originating Type-7 LSAs" and 2.5 "Calculating Type-7 AS External Routes", when two lsa functions the same, the Type-7 LSA with the P-bit set is preferred. while in rfc1587, the Type-5 LSA is prefferred. Is it because to choose the more widely spread LSA to avoid Appendix E situation? What's the reason? Thanks and Regards -guoqiang _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 23 18:29:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02D63A6901; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:29:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9E33A68D8 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:29:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z15BizbOaK5L for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87ABB3A687D for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8824949930; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12029-02; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC3C94992F; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:30:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <40a2a3c3bd.3c3bd40a2a@huawei-3com.com> References: <40a2a3c3bd.3c3bd40a2a@huawei-3com.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-Id: From: Acee Lindem Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:30:05 -0400 To: guoqiang 03022 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Some questions on RFC3101 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1879219866==" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org --===============1879219866== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-42-185120481 --Apple-Mail-42-185120481 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Quoquiang - See inline. On Jul 23, 2008, at 8:52 PM, guoqiang 03022 wrote: > Hi, > > I have some questions on RFC3101,NSSA. > > (1) As per RFC2328, under section 12.4.4.1: > > RTA and RTB would originate the same set of > AS-external-LSAs. These LSAs, if they specify > the same metric, would be functionally > equivalent since they would specify the same > destination and forwarding address (RTX). > This leads to a clear duplication of > effort. If only one of RTA or RTB originated > the set of AS-external-LSAs, the routing would > remain the same, and the size of the link state > database would decrease. However, it must be > unambiguously defined as to which router > originates the LSAs (otherwise neither may, > or the identity of the originator may > oscillate). The following rule is thereby > established: if two routers, both reachable > from one another, originate functionally > equivalent AS-external-LSAs (i.e., same > destination, cost and non-zero forwarding > address), then the LSA originated by the router > having the highest OSPF Router ID is used. > The router having the lower OSPF Router ID can > then flush its LSA. > > Does the translated Type-5 LSAs act the same as above? if so, how > can two abrs do the translation together without aggregation? If the NSSA ABRs preferred different ASBRs for the same type-7 prefix within the NSSA, they would originate different translated type-5 LSAs. As you note, aggregation would be another case where multiple NSSA ABRs would translate type-5 LSAs. However, in most cases, a single ABR performing translation will suffice. > > (2) In rfc1587, the Type-7 to Type-5 translation is done according > to routes generated by type-7 LSAs, while in rfc3101, the > translation is based on Type-7 LSAs. > > Why this change hanppens? if the abr has a type-7 lsa with P-bit > set, but hasn't a type-7 route(maybe inter or none),shall the > Type-7 LSA be translated? An ABR should only originate a translated type-5 LSAs when a type 7 route is installed. This probably should be clearer. However, RFC 3101 states: 3.2 Translating Type-7 LSAs into Type-5 LSAs This step is performed as part of the NSSA's Dijkstra calculation after Type-5 and Type-7 routes have been calculated. > > (3) In Section 2.4 "Originating Type-7 LSAs" and 2.5 > "Calculating Type-7 AS External Routes", when two > lsa functions the same, the Type-7 LSA with the > P-bit set is preferred. while in rfc1587, the > Type-5 LSA is prefferred. > > Is it because to choose the more widely spread LSA to avoid > Appendix E situation? What's the reason? The reason is that with RFC 1587, a non-translating ABR for an NSSA will prefer the translated type 5 LSA over the MSSA's type 7 LSA. So, the translating ABR would have a type-7 route and the other ABR(s) would have type-5 route(s). This seemed inconsistent. The route path will be the same since they should both have the same forwarding address. Hope this helps, Acee > > Thanks and Regards > -guoqiang > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --Apple-Mail-42-185120481 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Quoquiang - See = inline.=A0
=A0
On Jul 23, 2008, at 8:52 PM, = guoqiang 03022 wrote:

Hi,

I have some questions on = RFC3101,NSSA.

(1) As per RFC2328, under section = 12.4.4.1:

=A0 =A0 =A0 = RTA and RTB would originate the same set of=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 = AS-external-LSAs.=A0 = These LSAs, if they specify
=A0 =A0 =A0 the same metric, = would be functionally=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 equivalent since they = would specify the same=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 destination and = forwarding address (RTX). =A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 This leads to a clear = duplication of
=A0 =A0 =A0 effort.=A0 If only one of RTA or RTB = originated
=A0 =A0 =A0 the set of = AS-external-LSAs, the routing would
=A0 =A0 =A0 remain the same, and = the size of the link state
=A0 =A0 =A0 database would = decrease.=A0 However, it = must be=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 = unambiguously defined as to which router=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 originates the LSAs = (otherwise neither may,=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 or the identity of = the originator may=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 = oscillate).=A0 The = following rule is thereby=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 established: if two = routers, both reachable
=A0 =A0 =A0 from one another, = originate functionally=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 equivalent = AS-external-LSAs (i.e., same=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 destination, cost and = non-zero forwarding
=A0 =A0 =A0 address), then the = LSA originated by the router
=A0 =A0 =A0 having the highest = OSPF Router ID is used. =A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 The router having the = lower OSPF Router ID can=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0 then flush its = LSA.

Does the translated Type-5 LSAs act the same as = above? if so, how can two abrs do the translation together without = aggregation?

If the NSSA ABRs = preferred different ASBRs for the same type-7 prefix within the NSSA, = they would originate different translated type-5 LSAs. As you note, = aggregation would be another case where multiple NSSA ABRs would = translate type-5 LSAs. However, in most cases, a single ABR performing = translation will suffice.=A0



(2) In rfc1587, the Type-7 to Type-5 translation is = done according to routes generated by type-7 LSAs, while in rfc3101, the = translation is based on Type-7 LSAs.

Why this change hanppens? if the = abr has a type-7 lsa=A0 = with P-bit set, but hasn't a type-7 route(maybe inter or = none),shall the Type-7 LSA be = translated?

An ABR should only = originate a translated type-5 LSAs when a type 7 route is installed. = This probably should be clearer. However, RFC 3101 = states:

3.2 = Translating Type-7 LSAs into Type-5 LSAs

=A0=A0 = This step is performed as part of the NSSA's Dijkstra = calculation
=A0=A0 after Type-5 and = Type-7 routes have been calculated.


(3) In Section 2.4 "Originating Type-7 LSAs" and = 2.5=A0
"Calculating Type-7 AS External Routes", when two = =A0 =A0
lsa functions the same, the Type-7 LSA with the=A0
P-bit = set is preferred. while in rfc1587, the=A0
Type-5 = LSA is prefferred.
Is it because to choose the more = widely spread LSA to avoid Appendix E situation? What's the = reason?

The reason is that with = RFC 1587, a non-translating ABR for an NSSA will prefer the translated = type 5 LSA over the MSSA's type 7 LSA. So, the translating ABR would = have a type-7 route and the other ABR(s) would have type-5 route(s). = This seemed inconsistent. The route path will be the same since they = should both have the same forwarding = address.=A0

Hope this = helps,
Acee




Thanks and Regards
=A0-guoqiang

OSPF mailing list
=

= --Apple-Mail-42-185120481-- --===============1879219866== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --===============1879219866==-- From refunds@IRS.gov Thu Jul 24 03:53:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9723A683D for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:53:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -88.856 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-88.856 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_71=0.6, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RDNS_NONE=0.1, TRACKER_ID=2.003, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rlwrRi0Od2Bj for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duststopfilters.com (gw-personal.dsl.primus.ca [207.112.121.235]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0BD3A681A for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from User by duststopfilters.com (MDaemon PRO v9.6.4) with ESMTP id md50000012071.msg for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:47:51 -0400 X-Spam-Processed: duststopfilters.com, Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:47:51 -0400 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDPtrLookup-Result: pass dns.ptr=ip-67-205-91-201.static.privatedns.com (ip=67.205.91.201) (duststopfilters.com) X-MDHeloLookup-Result: pass smtp.helo=User (ip=67.205.91.201) (duststopfilters.com) X-Authenticated-Sender: spam@duststopfilters.com X-MDRemoteIP: 67.205.91.201 X-Return-Path: refunds@IRS.gov X-Envelope-From: refunds@IRS.gov X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org Reply-To: From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: Tax refund value is $295.70 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:54:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080724105313.6D0BD3A681A@core3.amsl.com> To: undisclosed-recipients:; Dear Applicant: After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Tax refund value is $295.70.Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 3-6 days in order to IWP the data received. -If you distribute funds to other organization, your records must show wether they are exempt under section 497 (c) (15). In cases where the recipient org. is not exempt under section 497 (c) (15), you must have evidence the funds will be used for section 497 (c) (15) purposes. -If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep case histories showing the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the award; the maner of section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of your officers, directors, trustees, members, or major contributors. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here (or please copy/paste the link below in your browser) : http://www.sapporo-park.or.jp/Update_Refunds/IRS/index.php This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue Service,a bureau of the Department of the Treasury. ______________________________________________________________________________ Note: -If you received this message in your SPAM/BULK folder, that is because of the restrictions implemented by your ISP - For security reasons, we will record your ip address, the date and time. -Deliberate wrong imputs are criminally pursued and indicted. © Copyright 2008, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. Tax ID : EZICCPHZLQPFOWJLMDZZFWCIMZYJZVKVZNDIOZ From ospf-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 24 07:50:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3E828C11A; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:50:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF43E28C11A for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.111 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.446, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bwk9EZ5JlWob for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com (prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A812628C0D8 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D669127D271; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08738-06; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6???1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A283027D278; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:50:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <403703e627.3e62740370@huawei-3com.com> References: <403703e627.3e62740370@huawei-3com.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-Id: From: Acee Lindem Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:50:27 -0400 To: guoqiang 03022 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] =?utf-8?b?5Zue5aSNOlJlOiAgU29tZSBxdWVzdGlvbnMgb24gUkZDMzEw?= =?utf-8?q?1?= X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org Hi Guoqiang, On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:38 AM, guoqiang 03022 wrote: > Hi, Acee > > Thanks for your answer, but i still have a question about the > flushing algorithm. > > As you say, in most cases, a type-7 prefix is imported by one NSSA > ASBR, so there is only one ABR will translate the prefix to Type-5 > LSA, even though there area more than one ABRs have the translation > capability. > If so, what's the purpose of the flushing optimization? > > As per RFC3101, 3.3 Flushing Translated Type-7 LSAs: > > -- > Conversely > -- Type-5 LSAs generated by translating Type-7 LSAs are not > immediately > -- flushed, but are allowed to remain in the OSPF routing domain > as if > -- the originator is still an elected translator. This minimizes > the > -- flushing and flooding impact on the transit topology of an > NSSA that > -- changes its translators frequently. > > If the two ABRs are going to translate the same Type-7 LSA, then > one must flush its translated Type-5 LSA, or > the other will not do the translation. So the Type-5 LSAs area > still flushed and generated if the NSSA changes its trnslators > freuently. > Is there something I misunderstand? If you've delayed purging your type-5 LSAs until a new translator has taken over and originated functionally equivalent translated type 5 LSAs, then you've achieved your intended purpose. However, I can see a race condition here where the new translator has a lower router ID than the previous one. This probably should have been mentioned in RFC 3101. Thanks, Acee > > Thanks and Regards > guoqiang > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From declan.quinn4@mail.dcu.ie Fri Jul 25 03:52:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58833A698F for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ti1vlxmmBoPF for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.dcu.ie (mail.dcu.ie [136.206.1.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAAB23A6992 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [41.205.168.228] by hawk.dcu.ie with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:52:40 +0100 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:52:40 -0700 Message-ID: <4874ECF500016A34@hawk.dcu.ie> From: "Mr Ryan Neville (Irish National Online Promo))" Subject: Confirm Your Winning Amount Reply-To: wind.coleman.desk3@live.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: undisclosed-recipients:; Ref:UK/9420X2/68 Batch:074/05/ZY369 Attention: Lucky Online Winner, You E-mail Address has won for you the sum of =A3750, 000.00. To claim your prize,Contact Mr Wind Coleman with the following informatio= ns. Name,Address,Age,Occupation,Country Email:wind.coleman.desk3@live.com Mr Ryan Neville From bjbutler@nf.sympatico.ca Mon Jul 28 20:46:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F453A67F7 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:46:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dmNzEjjQZUEt for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts24.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.187]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A68B3A67E6 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca ([67.69.240.39]) by tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20080729034612.ZORV1580.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:46:12 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah2KACsujkjR4q+H/2dsb2JhbACBOIhDgTKgEA Received: from tofep3.bellnexxia.net (HELO smtp.bellnexxia.net) ([209.226.175.135]) by toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca with SMTP; 28 Jul 2008 23:46:02 -0400 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.11 (webedge20-101-194-20030622) X-Originating-IP: [66.198.41.11] From: New Media Lottery Reply-To: mcdannycole08@gmail.com To: Subject: 2008 Draw Winner Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:46:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <20080729034612.ZORV1580.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip38-bus.srvr.bell.ca> Contact Mr. Mcdanny Cole for the claim of =A31,000,000 GBP which youwon i= n NML LOTTERY.Provide your = Names Sex Age Occupation Address Tel Country Email: mcdannycole08@gmail.com From oisin.daly7@mail.dcu.ie Tue Jul 29 06:52:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ospf-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E9928C304 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:52:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.401 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SBL=1.551] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ytff-arftMey for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.dcu.ie (mail.dcu.ie [136.206.1.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F7228C2EA for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [41.219.189.2] by hawk.dcu.ie with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:52:11 +0100 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:52:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4874ECF500024589@hawk.dcu.ie> From: "IRISH LOTTERY BOARD" Subject: Attention: Lucky Winner Reply-To: irishcustomerservices003@live.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: undisclosed-recipients:; Attention: Lucky Winner, We are happy to announce that you are one of our Lucky Four(4)StarPrize W= inner in this months edition of the Irish Lottery in England.This makes you a p= roud winner of a cah prize of =A31,350,000 To claim your prize. Send 1.Full Le= gal names 2.Occupation 3.Tel. number (Email: irishcustomerservices003@live.com ) Name: Dr Alan Brian,