From: Senthil K. Venkatachalam (svenkatachalamOPNET.COM)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 11:17:04 CDT

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

At 12:36 AM 4/16/2003 -0400, Acee Lindem wrote:

>Dennis,
>
>Good point - the base protocol doesn't require the subnets for
>neighbors on numbered P2P links to match so you really don't want
>to try and match the interface address (link data) in a router LSA's
>type 1 link with the corresponding LSA's type 1 link data or its type 3
>links. There are implementations that require a subnet match for
>neighbor adjacency on numbered P2P interfaces but this is contrary
>to RFC 2328.
>
>So the issues and implementation choices are similar for parallel
>numbered and unnumbered P2P links. Currently, I've implemented a
>fairly liberal bi-directional check (one back-link will suffice).
>What is your take on this issue?
>
>Thanks,
>Acee

I think the bi-directional check mentioned above should be enough
for general SPF, which is the goal of RFC 2328.

It may not be sufficient for TE CSPF, where a path has be computed from
a remote node, and there has to be a way of identifying the unnumbered
interface
of a node several hops away.

Regards,
Senthil.

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