On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]>wrote:
> > This is due to the fact that paths via transit area ABRs other than the > virtual link endpoints can be installed. If I were designing a link-state > protocol from scratch, I would not include the complexity of virtual links > as they are specified in OSPF. > > Hope this helps, > Acee > > On Nov 14, 2010, at 9:47 PM, p6 c6d6 wrote: > > > hi, > > > > why should one recalculate routes using transit areas summary lsas, even > if > > better paths exist through transit area. as a virtual link is considered > as > > an unumbered p2p link, it is as good as the router has an interface to > the backbone. > > referring to rfc2328 figure 17, RT1 chooses route network N1 through RT4, > since that > > is an intra-area path, that is in accordance to the path preference rules > of ospf. > > why do we give special treatment for transit areas. If the link were not > a virtual-link and > > if it indeed is real p2p interface in to the backbone, we will not try to > route the data to N1 > > through RT5, since the route through RT4 would be preferred. why special > treatment for > > transit areas, and why can't we extend this treatment to other areas as > well (neglecting > > the fact that area routing is protected by bad routing of other areas). > > > > thanks in advance > > > > > > <ATT00001..txt> > > oh is it. i thought virtual links is a good idea. and for the newly calculated route why do we have to use the associated area as backbone area though the path is still through transit area ?
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
