> > Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]> wrote on 2010/12/23 14:35:41: > > > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:49:02AM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]> wrote on 2010/12/22 18:44:54: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > > > BTW, currently even if an opposite address is known, BIRD OSPF ptp > > > > > > links use > > > > > > multicast for HELLO protocol which would not work on physically ptp > > > > > > links > > > > > > that does not implement multicast. But AFAIK in such cases multicast > > > > > > (and broadcast) is implemented on OS level (just it sends everything > > > > > > to the other side). > > > > > > > > > > Would that be AllSPFRouters? That is what you should use on ptp > > > > > links(but not > > > > > on ptmp links). > > > > > > > > Yes, that is what we do, so it is OK. > > > > > > hmm, from a quick look I am not convinced that EVERY OSPF msg sent > > > on PtP links uses AllSPFRouters as dst address. > > > > I wrote about HELLO packets, these are sent to AllSPFRouters on PtP links. > Oh, forgot that. > > > Other packets are sent to the neighbor IP address, which is a slight > > diversion from RFC 2328, but should not cause any problems. > > But a stricter router may reject OSPF msg over an ptp links if > they aren't addressed to AllSPFRouters.
I just noticed you impl. a PTMP I/F type, nice :) Jocke
