Subject: Re: description of p2p link in r-LSA

From: "Manral, Vishwas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 05:42:06 -0400

Hi Zhongjie Li,

1) The few implementations I know of use option 2.
2) No, there should be no interoperabilty concerns/problems if the two ends
use different options. However in that case we would have a host route(/32)
as well as a network route.

Also check the link
http://discuss.microsoft.com/SCRIPTS/WA-MSD.EXE?A2=ind9908&L=OSPF&P=R3243&I=
-3. A similar discussion was on the list a few days back too.

Thanks,
Vishwas

-----Original Message-----
From: Li Zhongjie [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 9:36 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: description of p2p link in r-LSA

Hi,

  For a numbered point-to-point link, a router has two options to declare a
stub link <link id,link data>:
  1) <subnet number, subnet mask>
  2) <endpoint ip address, all 1's mask>
  as decribed in RFC2328 section 12.4.1.1 page 130.
  Two questions to ask:
  1) what is the mostly widely used option on the current Internet?
  2) I think different routers in an OSPF area can use different options
without causing any problems, right?
---
Best Regards,

Zhongjie Li

********************************************************************
*    Zhongjie Li                                                   *
*    Ph.D candidate, Department of Computer Science & Technology   *
*    Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, P.R.China               *
*    Tel: +86+10-62788109     Fax:  +86+10-62788109                *
*    Email: [email-masked]                          *
********************************************************************

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:21:14 -0400

> 1) The few implementations I know of use option 2.

For the sake of clarification, I believe Vishwas means option 2
as defined in the RFC 2328 (as opposed to Zhonglie's E-mail
where the two options are reversed).

--
Acee