Amit,

        Why don't you think a log of flushed LSAs
        is a good idea?

        - Are you concerned with the amount of memory
        consumed with the log?

        - Are you concerned that the log has a certain
        time frame that is valid and as time progresses
        the information becomes useless?

        - Are you concerned what you are going to do with
        the log after you create it?

        - Etc...

        Mitchell Erblich
        ================

Amit Srivastava wrote:
>
> Hi Vishwas!!
> I have one more doubt the RFC 1765 say in example
> (section 3) that when the OSPF timer expires then it
> tries to come out of the database overflow state and
> originates all the 400 non default AS-Exteranl LSA.Is
> it that before flushing the LSA it keeps the LSA in a
> linklist form and after the timer expires it
> originates the LSA again!!If this is the case then i
> have small doubt :-
> We have flushed the link state database
> because we think that we cannot accomodate any other
> LSA.Now keeping the log of all the flushed LSA would
> not be a good idea what i feel!!!
> What do u say??
> Regards
> Amit
>
> --- "Manral, Vishwas" <VishwasMNETPLANE.COM> wrote:
> > Amit,
> >
> > When the administrator finds that a domain is
> > getting "Overflows" he has to
> > change the policies so that the number of routes
> > imported into the domain is
> > reduced. The routes to be imported are all an
> > administrative
> > decision/policies and the OSPF packets etc do not
> > come into picture at all.
> >
> > The RFC in this point talks about importing routes
> > from other domains and
> > not about received LSA's from other routers in the
> > domain.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vishwas
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Amit Srivastava [mailto:ospfisfunYAHOO.COM]
> > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 4:35 PM
> > To: OSPFDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
> > Subject: Re: OSPF Retransmission Doubt
> >
> >
> > Hi Vishwas!!
> > The RFC 1765 section 4 last point states that
> > if
> > the administrator cannot incresase the value of
> > ospfExtlsdbLimit then he can make sure that more
> > important routes continue to be imported ; this is
> > accomplished by turning off the importing of less
> > important routes.
> > Now my doubt is ->is it that the administrator
> > configures paticular n/w coming in the AS-external
> > packet as important or unimportant or does it mean
> > that routes learned by a paticular router-id are
> > important and will stay in the database while all
> > the
> > others will be flushed or is it implementation
> > specific!!!
> > Regards
> > Amit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Manral, Vishwas" <VishwasMNETPLANE.COM> wrote:
> > > Hi Amit,
> > >
> > > The case would not occur if all the routers would
> > > have the same value of
> > > ExtLSDBLimit except in the transient condition.
> > > Section 2.2 first part would
> > > only occur if the value is not the same this may
> > be
> > > required. Its always
> > > better to check the condition, if we are exceeding
> > > the limit and accordingly
> > > take action to get over any such a case.
> > >
> > > Section 2.3 states that the flooding modification
> > > would only be invoked
> > > during a "short period of convergence" for same
> > > value of LSDBLimit. Such a
> > > case would only occur say when two routers are
> > > symultaneously originating
> > > AS-External LSA's. So when they are originating
> > the
> > > LSA's the LSDB limit is
> > > not exceeded however when they are receiving the
> > > LSA's from the other the
> > > LSDB limit is exceeded. However as the RFC states
> > > this would be a transient
> > > condition.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Vishwas
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Amit Srivastava [mailto:ospfisfunYAHOO.COM]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 10:24 AM
> > > To: OSPFDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
> > > Subject: Re: OSPF Retransmission Doubt
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Vishwas,
> > > I have a small doubt .If u refer to section 2.2
> > > and
> > > 2.3 of RFC 1765 it states that during flooding
> > also
> > > the variable count of non-default AS_external LSA
> > is
> > > incremented( if we receive a non-default
> > AS-external
> > > LSA during flooding).But if we have a common
> > thresh
> > > hold limit i.e variable ospfExtlsdbLimit is same
> > for
> > > all the router how come this condition will be
> > > encountered???
> > > Regards
> > > Amit
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "Manral, Vishwas" <VishwasMNETPLANE.COM>
> > wrote:
> > > > Hi Amit,
> > > >
> > > > I do not think any RFC which talks about
> > > non-default
> > > > type-3 LSA's exists.
> > > > The RFC1765 only talks about type-5 LSA's
> > however
> > > it
> > > > could be extended for
> > > > other type of LSA's i.e. type-7, type-11.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Vishwas
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Amit Srivastava
> > [mailto:ospfisfunYAHOO.COM]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:43 AM
> > > > To: OSPFDISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
> > > > Subject: Re: OSPF Retransmission Doubt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Erblich and Vishwas,
> > > > Erblich I got your point but is there any
> > > > Draft or RFC which
> > > > states
> > > > this??
> > > > And Vishwas thanks for your help i would
> > also
> > > > like to know if
> > > > there is any draft which states that we can
> > > withdraw
> > > > Summary 3 and 4
> > > > non-default LSA.Because The RFC 2370 specks very
> > > > little about it.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Amit
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Amit Srivastava <ospfisfunYAHOO.COM> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Vishwas!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually after reading the RFC 1765
> > only
> > > i
> > > > got this doubt.Here i
> > > > feel once the OSPFEXTLSDBLinit variable is
> > > exceeded
> > > > the router should
> > > > indicate other routers that its database is full
> > > and
> > > > they should not keep on
> > > > retransmitting the LSA which will clog the n/w
> > > > bandwidth.Once the router
> > > > comes out of the database overflow state it
> > should
> > > > indicate to the other
> > > > router that now they should send the LSA.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What do you say about this??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Amit
> > > >
> > > > "Manral, Vishwas" <VishwasMNETPLANE.COM>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Amit,
> > > >
> > > > You may like to look at the RFC1765 - OSPF
> > > Database
> > > > Overflow.
> > > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1765.txt This RFC
> > tells
> > > a
> > > > way to deal with such
> > > > overflow when it occurs in OSPF.
> > > >
> > > > Also as the RFC lists as enhancements, if the
> > > number
> > > > of summary LSA's
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]