Hi Nischal,
On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:02 AM, Nischal Sheth wrote:
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.
I agree. Scratch what I said above, I was thinking in terms of an
implementation optimization.
Thanks,
Acee
Thanks,
Nischal
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
