Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Naidu, Venkata (Venkata.NaiduMARCONI.COM)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 13:03:23 CST
You didn't clear my doubt yet :-)
I do understand the wordings but I am asking (rather
proposing) a change.
-> What confuses me here is: "all" in the above sentence.
-> If I have some numbered links in an area "A" and all
-> unnumbered links in an area "B" then should area "B"'s
-> Router LSA have Router Address?
-> Even if not, will summary LSAs of area "A" will take
-> care of the issue?
Let us consider a ABR connected to area A, B and C:
1. all links connected to Area A are unnumbered.
2. some of the links connected to Area B are unnumbered.
3. none of the links connected to Area C are unnumbered.
(Let us assume that a link can be either numbered or unnumbered
but not both. Let us forget that a link can be both numbered and
unnumbered - at least in theory)
Now there are some virtual links configured in Area A or B
(in case of Area C there won't be any problem)
The possible solution could be:
1. advertise Router Address (or any valid IP address reachable
or routable in the system) in Router LSAs IF it is ABR AND
a virtual link is configured AND *at least* one unnumbered
link is in that area.
2. We can even go little bit ahead and change the semantics.
OSPF Router ID is a Routable Address in the topology under
consideration. Unlike just a 32 bit number.
This way we can get some IP address for virtual links. Don't you
think so? I think John can answer this well based on his initial