Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> wrote on 2010/12/23 14:35:41:
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:49:02AM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> wrote on 2010/12/22 18:44:54:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > > BTW, currently even if an opposite address is known, BIRD OSPF ptp
> > > > > links use
> > > > > multicast for HELLO protocol which would not work on physically ptp
> > > > > links
> > > > > that does not implement multicast. But AFAIK in such cases multicast
> > > > > (and broadcast) is implemented on OS level (just it sends everything
> > > > > to the other side).
> > > >
> > > > Would that be AllSPFRouters? That is what you should use on ptp
> > > > links(but not
> > > > on ptmp links).
> > >
> > > Yes, that is what we do, so it is OK.
> >
> > hmm, from a quick look I am not convinced that EVERY OSPF msg sent
> > on PtP links uses AllSPFRouters as dst address.
>
> I wrote about HELLO packets, these are sent to AllSPFRouters on PtP links.
Oh, forgot that.
> Other packets are sent to the neighbor IP address, which is a slight
> diversion from RFC 2328, but should not cause any problems.
But a stricter router may reject OSPF msg over an ptp links if
they aren't addressed to AllSPFRouters.
Jocke
