Folks,
To expand on Marek's comment, please consider the scenario of a transit
link with routers A and B (and perhaps others) where A is the DR and
configured with prefix suppression but B has a global prefix which needs
to be advertised. In this scenario A must include B's prefix in its
intra-area-prefix LSA for the Link. Therefor I believe the best way to
handle transit links is for prefixes to only be suppressed from Link
LSAs. The DR in this case will not have put its own global prefix in its
Link LSA and that will keep it out of the intra-area-prefix LSA but the
DR prefix LSA can still be built according to RFC5340 section 4.4.3.9
Regards,
Michael
On 02/22/2012 06:45 AM, Marek Karasek (mkarasek) wrote:
Hi Acee,
one can argue that if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, DR will
not produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding to the transit network.
To some extend it's equivalent of v2 behavior, prefix suppression has to
be configured on DR in order to hide the subnet on the broadcast
segment.
In any case, it would be good if draft specify:
- if prefixes are suppressed from Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA only, or also
from link LSA.
- if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, will be suppressed only
own prefixes, or also prefixes learnt from BDRs/DROTHERs via link LSAs.
I read current draft such that prefixes are suppresses only from
Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA and if suppression configured on DR, DR will not
produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA
corresponding to the transit network. I'm OK with it, but other models
are acceptable too.
Thanks marek
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of
Acee Lindem
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:54 PM
To: Yi Yang (yiya)
Cc: OSPF List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only
Networks
in OSPF " -<draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>
Hi Yi,
The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs
since they are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA
corresponding to the transit network
Thanks,
Acee
On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote:
Hi Rajesh,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be
configured on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF
calculations.
Yi
On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote:
Dear Acee,
Some more thoughts.
1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks
in
OSPFv3"
We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is
configured on a
interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA.
2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to
support
OSPF
and OSPFv3 MIBs as well.
Thanks
Rajesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM
To: Rajesh
Cc: OSPF List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only
Networks in
OSPF " -<draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>
Hi Rajesh,
On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote:
Dear Acee,
We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for
OSPFv3]
"LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual
LINK IPv6
address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the
prefix
hiding is configured"
It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is
not
advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC
5340,
Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address
to
terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with
the
prefix hiding configured.
Thanks,
Acee
Please check.
Thanks& Regards
Rajesh
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of
Acee
Lindem
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM
Cc: OSPF List
Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only
Networks
in
OSPF
" -<draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>
As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF
Working Group
last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt.
Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to
12:00 AM
PDT on February 23nd, 2012.
Here is a URL for your convenience:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt
Thanks,
Acee
On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is
ready for
OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?
There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you
convenience:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt
There is an IPR disclosure on this draft:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/
I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any
objections.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
