On Jul 18, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Nitin Kakkar wrote:
I don’t think LSA’s are considered Functionally equivalent with
different or zero forwarding address. So need to consider both
LSA’s in route calc.
Correct.
Thanks,
Acee
Nitin
From: Abhishek Bhalotia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OSPF]Path prefrence for External LSA
Hi All,
I have a doubt related to Path preference rule when there are LSA
with different FA.
In RFC 3101 (NSSA option), section 2.5.6 (e) for calculating
External LSA states;
(e) If the current LSA is functionally the same as an
installed LSA (i.e., same destination,
cost and non-zero
forwarding address) then apply the following
priorities in
deciding which LSA is preferred:
1. A Type-7 LSA with the P-bit set.
2. A Type-5 LSA.
3. The LSA with the higher router ID.
[NSSA]
My doubt is:
If the both LSAs have zero FA or different FA then should the above
preference rule be skipped
and both LSAs be considered for SPF?
Thanks and Regards
Abhishek
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose
address is listed above. Any use of the information contained
herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than
the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail
in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately
and delete it!
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
