Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org> wrote on 2010/12/28 01:55:42: > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 01:15:28AM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I just noticed you impl. a PTMP I/F type, nice :) > > > > > > I updated to new nexhp calc. patch to match your latest > > > changes. I hope you like it. > > > > Did some more spf improvements. Lets see if you like these too: > > > + /* The first case - local network */ > > + if (en->lsa.type == LSA_T_NET) > > + return new_nexthop(po, IPA_NONE, ifa->iface, ifa->ecmp_weight); > > + > > + /* The second case - ptp or ptmp neighbor */ > > + if (en->lsa.type == LSA_T_RT) > > + { > > + if (ifa->type == OSPF_IT_PTP) > > + return new_nexthop(po, ifa->addr->opposite, ifa->iface, > > + ifa->ecmp_weight); > > As i wrote 21 Dec 2010 11:42:56, this is not correct, opposite might
Right, forgot about that. What do you think of the other changes? especially the goto bad; changes and the if (par == oa->rt) { /* par is root ? */ test to simplify the code? Jocke