On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:17:40PM -0400, Acee Lindem wrote: > Nobody has ever suggested this - why do think it useful?
Oops - context: Unnumbered operation on broadcast media, and on that principle reduction of both IPv4 address consumption and configuration complexity. -David > On Jun 23, 2012, at 9:31 AM, David Lamparter wrote: > > out of a rather funny misunderstanding of RFC 5309, I've ended up with > > half an implementation of OSPF running in ignorance of the IP subnet > > mask on a broadcast network. After cleaning up the misunderstanding and > > taking a step back, I found draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp, which > > I expected to contain a note about this, but no such thing. > > > > The general idea would be to operate a broadcast medium with a /32 > > subnet mask, possibly unnumbered, and allowing adjacencies with just > > about anything that sends a Hello (and passes auth). > > > > The link can operate as regular broadcast, hybrid-bcast-p2mp, or P-t-P > > (the last would amount to RFC 5309 with the detail that the peer address > > is not known up front.) > > > > (For OSPFv3, this is obviously not interesting since with link-local > > addresses, there is no notion of similar same-subnet restrictions.) > > > > I haven't found anything on this - is this mode of operation already > > described somewhere? _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
