Hi, On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:46:51PM +0200, Volker D. Pallas wrote: > I've read the RFC now and you're right.
I'm not so sure anymore. A fellow reader has challenged my interpretation of the RFC wording, that it might mean "OSPF virtual links", not tunnel (and similar virtual, non-physical) interfaces. Upon re-reading with that interpretation in mind, I tend to agree. Thinking further about it, mtu=0 for OSPF virtual links makes sense, as only OSPF PDUs are being tunnelled, no actual traffic. So there is no sensible MTU to report in the DBD packets. On real tunneling interfaces though, everything (OSPF PDUs and actual traffic) gets tunnelled, and the tunnel has a real MTU associated. So in fact, I think my interpretation was wrong and JUNOS is actually misbehaving by advertising MTU=0. It should report the tunnel interface L3 MTU. Sorry for the noise. I suggest raising a case with JTAC and closing off the Quagga bug filing. BTW, I noticed your Linux tunnel interface being named "gre-nc" - I guess the "gre" part is a leftover misnomer from trying GRE encaps? Best regards from Porz to Porz, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- d...@ircnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp