Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote on 14/08/2009 16:23:15: > > On Aug 14, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote on 14/08/2009 00:13:48: > >> > >>> > >>>> Is there something in the OSPF spec which prevents it from operate > >>>> on multiple numbered PtoP interfaces with the same local IP > >>>> address? > >>>> > >>>> I have that working, but there are arguments that this is > >>>> allowed by > >>>> OSPF, i.e, ethier use unnumbered links or unique local IP > >>>> addresses. > >>>> > >>>> Jocke > >>> > >>> Got some comments on this but nothing conclusive, I really want > >>> to know. Acee, what do you think? > >> > >> Since there is only a type 1 (router link) in the Router-LSA for each > >> unnumbered link, it makes no difference how many use the same IP > >> address. > > > > Right, but how about multiple NUMBERED PtoP interfaces with the > > same local IP address? > > I'd argue that if your configuration supports this, all but one of > the interfaces is unnumbered.
hmm, please clarify. I do mean treating each and every PtP as a numbered PtP link. Is there something that prohibits this in the spec? Of course not all routers will be able to handle this but in that case it would be a limitation in the impl. Is it allowed to have numbered on one side of the link and unnumbered on the other side? > > > > Then there will be multiple identical > > type 3 too. > > Even though it is non-standard, I don't see any problems. I believe > Dave alluded to the fact that some OSPF implementations may have ABR > SPF optimizations which can have problems when the same address is > advertised in multiple addresses - I know fixed some problems here in > one implementation. Yeah, when one only uses the router LSAs to identify the interface you are in trouble. > > Acee > > > > > Jocke > > > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
