Hi Peter, Keshava, I agree wholeheartedly with Peter. We've never standardized redistribution policy in the past and there is no reason to do it now. Thanks, Acee On Nov 17, 2010, at 5:19 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
> Keshava, > > I do not see a reason why this needs to be standardized, as this > represents a local behavior of the PE and does not pose any > interoperability issues. > > thanks, > Peter > > On 17.11.2010 7:46, Keshava.Ayanur wrote: >> Peter, >> >> Instead of leaving this to implementation, it is better to define the exact >> behavior/rules how to be handled. >> >> Else there may be many possibilities like >> a)aggregation based on backbone area range, >> b)on area-id map, corresponding area range .. >> >> Keshava >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Rajesh Shetty >> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:38 AM >> To: 'Peter Psenak' >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF::aggregating huge number 'summary LSA" originated >> AT PE .. >> >> Peter, >> >> When PE report the route as Type3 LSA to CE (redistributed, might be huge in >> number), In this scenario is there a good mechanism to aggregate Type3 LSAs >> at PE before sending to CE. >> >> For such kind of Type3 Aggregation should we use backbone area range since >> PE router is considered as integral part of OSPF backbone? >> >> Thanks >> Rajesh >> >> >> >> >> This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, >> which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed >> above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, >> but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or >> dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is >> prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by >> phone or email immediately and delete it! >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Peter Psenak >> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:46 PM >> To: Keshava.Ayanur >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF::aggregating huge number 'summary LSA" originated >> AT PE .. >> >> Keshava, >> >> it's up to the implementation how it handles the aggregation of the BGP >> redistributed prefixes on PE. The most obvious choice is to treat it the >> same way as regular redistribution in which case an external LSA is >> generated for the summary itself. >> >> RFC4577 only specifies the behavior when no aggregation is done on PE: >> >> In the following, we specify what is reported, in OSPF LSAs, by the >> PE to the CE, assuming that the PE is not configured to do any >> further summarization or filtering of the routing information before >> reporting it to the CE." >> >> thanks, >> Peter >> >> >> >> On 16.11.2010 11:33, Keshava.Ayanur wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Any thoughts about aggregating the "Summary LSA's' originated in PE >>> which was redistributed from BGP . >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Keshava.A.K. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
