Hi Anton, David, I agree with Anton. One could possibly make it work for P2MP - however, this is more than simply an OSPF problem. Acee On Jun 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Anton Smirnov wrote:
> Hi David, > problem of unnumbered IP on broadcast interfaces has little to do > with OSPF. There are certain checks and assumptions built into IPv4 > architecture which prevent this (say, how ARP requests are accepted and > validated; check concept of proxy ARP). So before you solve this problem > in OSPF you should be messing with IPv4 basics and legacies of earlier > days. At this point in time this is not interesting. > As for /32 mask on broadcast interface see > draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-04. > > Anton > > > On 06/23/2012 11:00 PM, David Lamparter wrote: >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
