Acee Lindem wrote:
I have a related question about the intent of the RFC1583Compatibility
global parameter. When set to enabled, is the underlying objective to
emulate a RFC 1583 implementation (w.r.t. path selection among ASBRs and
external LSAs) or is it "just" to allow compatible operation with other
1583 routers in the network.
Offhand, I don't see much difference but I might be missing something.
Hi Acee,
Circling back to the original question I posted, my confusion was related to
how a RFC 2328 implementation with RFC1583Compatibility enabled should behave
as far as picking the best ASBR route is concerned.
If you interpret RFC 2328 literally, you would use the lowest cost route to
the ASBR irrespective of the type (intra vs. inter). In contrast, an RFC 1583
implementation would prefer the intra-area route. It wasn't clear to me if
this difference in behavior is intentional (hence my attempt to differentiate
between "compatibility" and "emulation") or whether it's simply the case that
the relevant sections are a little bit underspecified.
Based on your input, it appears that it's more of the latter than the former.
An RFC 2328 implementation can maintain multiple routes to the ASBR but make
sure that intra-area routes are preferred when RFC1583Compatibility is enabled.
Alternately, it can behave exactly like an RFC 1583 implementation and keep
only the intra-area route.
Does this sound reasonable?
Thanks,
Nischal
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
