Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote on 06/08/2009 20:18:38: > > Hello Joakim,
Hi Acee, I am back with my questions :) > > On Aug 6, 2009, at 5:22 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > > In "16.1.1. The next hop calculation" one have: > > In the second case, the parent vertex is a network that > > directly connects the calculating router to the > > destination > > router. The list of next hops is then determined by > > examining the destination's router-LSA. For each link in > > the router-LSA that points back to the parent network, the > > link's Link Data field provides the IP address of a > > next hop > > router. The outgoing interface to use can then be derived > > from the next hop IP address (or it can be inherited from > > the parent network). > > > > Suppose that one cannot find any links that points back, is it a good > > idea to treat this case as a intervening router: > > > > If there is at least one intervening router in the current > > shortest path between the destination and the root, the > > destination simply inherits the set of next hops from the > > parent. > > That is, just inherit the next hops from its parents? > > No - if the Router-LSA doesn't have a link to the Network-LSA you > don't use it in the SPF calculation. If fails the bi-directional check. The idea here is use some link until the remote end has updated its LSA to include the "back link" so the intervening router case will just act as a substitute until next LSA update. What I wonder is if this can cause more trouble than it solves, i.e what bad things can happen? Or won't it help at all? Jocke _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
