Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [OSPF doubt [9:2754] posted 09/03/2003
- Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [OSPF doubt [9:2754]
- From: "Alok Dube" <alok.dube@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:44:38 GMT
> I was just showing it as an example that it might be somewhat of a gray
thanks for the reply,
What i am trying to actually do is do a bit of a "diff" in the logic
between OSPF and ISIS.
In the case of ISIS we have a orthogonal address space to check for loops
etc (router-id need not be an IP etc).
In OSPF the router-id is an IP, which should ofcourse logically be
orthogonal to the address space. The router-id is only to identify the
router, the source of the LSA and basically the way i see it work is:
prefix x.y.z.w comes from router routerid1.
so incase we get the prefix xyzw twice from different interfaces etc or
there is a link flap etc, we know that routerid1 is associated with the
prefix and hence avoid poision reverse/split horizon and those scenarios.
However, i agree the router-id not being = IP address is an grey area, it
still dont quite comprehend the "stub".
fine if its numbered and P2P we need to send around the network, but if
its unnumbered and P2P,....the whole purpose of unnumbered seems beaten (
i.e we need switch from interface A to interface B to go to end point X,
if the link has an IP, it would be a part of reachibility, if not why the
stub...even in the "all P2P unnumbered cases").
its more academic curiosity than rebuilding the protocol :-)
Message Posted at:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/juniper.html