Hi,
Please consider the scenario:
R1(DR) R2(BDR)
| I1 I2 |
| |
|______________________ |
|
| I3
|
R3(DR-Other)
Here:
R1 is the DR.
R2 is the BDR
R3 is DR-Other, with DR-priority 0 and hence ineligible to become DR/BDR.
Following are the is the set of operations and a sequence of events:
1. Interface I1 is disabled. So, DR connectivity is lost to the rest of
the network.
2. R2(The current BDR) detects the DR-down.
a. Declares itself the DR.
b. Declares BDR as NULL.
c. Sends out a Hello with DR as I2 interface address, and BDR as 0.0.0.0
3. R3(DR-Other) receives Hello from R2.
As per, section 9.2 of RFC 2328:
o One of the bidirectional neighbors is newly declaring
itself as either Designated Router or Backup Designated
Router. This is detected through examination of that
neighbor's Hello Packets.
o One of the bidirectional neighbors is no longer
declaring itself as Designated Router, or is no longer
declaring itself as Backup Designated Router. This is
again detected through examination of that neighbor's
Hello Packets.
Triggers a NeighborChange event, which in-turn results in a DR election
at R3.
Please note that at this time R3 has not yet detected R1 down.
Now result of DR-election at R3:
DR: R1
BDR: 0.0.0.0
Since R2 is no longer the BDR, R3 transitions from FULL to 2-WAY with
R2(the new DR).
Of course, on detection of DR down at R3, R3 will elect R2 as DR and then
again transition to ExStart, to Exchange to Full with R2.
Can you please let me know:
* Is it right to trigger the NeighborChange event at R3 ?
* Is this transition from FULL to 2-WAY is expected?
* Can DR-Others flap adjacency with BDR if DR down detection happens
later than reception of new Hello from the new DR?
* Intuitively, it may seem desirable to continue to be adjacent to a
neighbor as long as it is still DR or BDR. Is this a fair call?
Please correct me if I have missed out something.
Thanks and Regards,
Bharath R.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
