Acee Lindem wrote:
IOW, does an implementation even need to
maintain multiple routes to an ASBR if RFC1583Compatibility is enabled?
I went back to RFC 1583 and a path per area providing ASBR reachability
is still maintained. I believe an implementation could maintain a single
path but then you'd have to handle finding an alternate path when an
ASBR becomes unreachabile.
Hi Acee,
I based this on my reading of section 16.2 in RFC 1583. According to items
(5), (6), (7) we only need to maintain the lowest cost route(s) to the ASBR,
preferring intra-area routes over inter-area routes. Specifically, item 5 does
not say (unlike RFC 2328) to lookup the area specific route entry to N for
type 4 LSAs. Hence I figured that we would end up with only 1 route to the
ASBR, assuming non equal cost routes.
Thanks,
Nischal
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
