On Sun, 2002-12-01 at 12:18, p b wrote:
Peter van Oene wrote:
Non intra-area ASBRs are found via type 4 LSAs (ASBR Summary)
which
follow the same rules as type 3 summaries and thus prevent non
zero
areas from providing transit toward ASBRs (that is where the
non zero
area
At 1:44 PM + 12/2/02, Peter van Oene wrote:
A general concept in routing is to always prefer information from the
most accurate source. In Link State routing, a given router always has
the most accurate information about the area itself, and thus will
always prefer information derived from
Peter van Oene wrote:
Non intra-area ASBRs are found via type 4 LSAs (ASBR Summary)
which
follow the same rules as type 3 summaries and thus prevent non
zero
areas from providing transit toward ASBRs (that is where the
non zero
area contains neither the source nor ASBR)
You're right. I
Thanks for the comments. Some thoughts below.
Peter van Oene wrote:
Went back and read through some of the relevant parts of
the RFC. I believe there is no routing loop issue if an ABR
was to consider summary LSAs received from non-zero areas.
(where consider means install routes
On Sat, 2002-11-30 at 12:52, p b wrote:
Thanks for the comments. Some thoughts below.
Peter van Oene wrote:
Went back and read through some of the relevant parts of
the RFC. I believe there is no routing loop issue if an ABR
was to consider summary LSAs received from non-zero
Thanks.
Went back and read through some of the relevant parts of
the RFC. I believe there is no routing loop issue if an ABR
was to consider summary LSAs received from non-zero areas.
(where consider means install routes from these type 3s.
consider, above, does not mean propogate the summary
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 08:04, p b wrote:
Thanks.
Went back and read through some of the relevant parts of
the RFC. I believe there is no routing loop issue if an ABR
was to consider summary LSAs received from non-zero areas.
(where consider means install routes from these type 3s.
Consider the following topology:
area_0---ABR_1area_1-ABR_2area_0
There are two area 0's.
Use a virtual link to connect the area 0s.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus ^V Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 21:56, p b wrote:
Consider this a question around the theory behind why OSPF
did things a certain way. Somewhere along the way, Moy
et. al. decided that there was an issue with an ABR processing
a summary LSA. Based on that, they decided to make a design
decision in
p b wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Consider this a question around the theory behind why OSPF
did things a certain way. Somewhere along the way, Moy
et. al. decided that there was an issue with an ABR processing
a summary LSA. Based on that, they decided to
Consider the following topology:
area_0---ABR_1area_1-ABR_2area_0
There are two area 0's. ABR_1 and ABR_2 will generate
type 3 summary LSAs for the respective area 0s and
flood the information into area_1. An internal
router in area 1 will see the summary LSAs from ABR_1
and
p b wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Consider the following topology:
area_0---ABR_1area_1-ABR_2area_0
There are two area 0's.
CL: you have a partitioned area 0. can't have two area zeros in ospf. to
quote from my favorite movie of all time,
CL: you have a partitioned area 0. can't have two area zeros in ospf. to
quote from my favorite movie of all time, There can be only one
I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the village
of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel. And I am a CCIE.
Message
B.J. Wilson wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
CL: you have a partitioned area 0. can't have two area zeros in ospf. to
quote from my favorite movie of all time, There can be only one
I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the
village
CL: hey, all those guys had multiple identities. He could hit the Lab
several times under different identities, scope it out, and probably pass
after just a couple of tries.
Crude and slow, clansman. Your config was no better than that of a clumsy
child.
;-)
Message Posted at:
Thanks. But this doesn't really answer my question. I realize
that area 0 is partitioned. I'm not looking for an answer to
is there a rule that prevents this, but instead, what breaks
if ABR_1 were to consider routes learned via a non-area-0 summary
LSA in its computation of it's routing table?
p b wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Thanks. But this doesn't really answer my question. I realize
that area 0 is partitioned. I'm not looking for an answer to
is there a rule that prevents this, but instead, what breaks
if ABR_1 were to consider routes learned
Consider this a question around the theory behind why OSPF
did things a certain way. Somewhere along the way, Moy
et. al. decided that there was an issue with an ABR processing
a summary LSA. Based on that, they decided to make a design
decision in OSPF to not allow this behavior.
Apparently
18 matches
Mail list logo
