[Xorp-users] OSPF point-to-multipoint issue

Vincent, Michael - 0665 - MITLL michael.vincent at ll.mit.edu
Fri Jun 18 12:42:21 PDT 2010


> So, in this case, router 1 has Full adjacency to 3, but 3 shows 1 as Down??
> If so, that seems wrong, but maybe I just don't understand point to multi-point OSPF configs...

Agreed.  Hence our dilemma.

    Cheers.

-- 
Michael J. Vincent
Group 65 - Advanced Networks and Applications
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington, MA 02420
Office:  +1.781.981.3459


-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Greear [mailto:greearb at candelatech.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 3:34 PM
To: Vincent, Michael - 0665 - MITLL
Cc: xorp-users at xorp.org; Zuena, John - 0665 - MITLL
Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] OSPF point-to-multipoint issue

On 06/18/2010 12:21 PM, Vincent, Michael - 0665 - MITLL wrote:
>> Ahh, so to get to the original peer, it needs to first remove the routes on the secondary link?
>
> Not necessarily, you can still get there (data path) through the multi-hop path; however, OSPF won't form an adjacency over a multi hop.  So to that point, yes, the host route that OSPF added needs to be removed for OSPF to then re-form it's adjacency.  Catch-22 sounds appropriate.
>
>
> I've only included the outputs for nodes 1 and 3 as that is what the example is talking about.  The actual experiment fails other links also and thus more peering sessions go down and do not re-establish.
>
>
> START:
> root at nlet-89-1>  show ospf4 neighbor
>    Address         Interface             State      ID              Pri  Dead
> 172.16.1.2       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.2        128     2
> 172.16.1.3       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.3        128     3
> 172.16.1.4       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.5        128     3
> 172.16.1.5       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.5        128     2
> 172.16.1.6       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.6        128     2
> 172.17.2.1       eth2.1212/eth2.1212    Full      10.10.1.8          1    31
> root at nlet-89-1>
>
> --
>
> [root at nlet-89-3 DISA]# xorpsh -c "show ospf4 neighbor"
> Welcome to XORP on nlet-89-3
> root at nlet-89-3>  show ospf4 neighbor
>    Address         Interface             State      ID              Pri  Dead
> 172.16.1.1       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.1        128     2
> 172.16.1.2       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.2        128     3
> 172.16.1.4       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.4        128     2
> 172.16.1.5       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.5        128     3
> 172.16.1.6       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.6        128     3
> root at nlet-89-3>  [root at nlet-89-3 DISA]#
>
>
> INTERMEDIATE:
> root at nlet-89-1>  show ospf4 neighbor
>    Address         Interface             State      ID              Pri  Dead
> 172.16.1.2       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.2          0     0
> 172.16.1.3       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.3        128     3
> 172.16.1.4       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.5          0     0
> 172.16.1.5       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.5          0     0
> 172.16.1.6       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.6          0     0
> 172.17.2.1       eth2.1212/eth2.1212    Full      10.10.1.8          1    31
> root at nlet-89-1>
>
> --
>
> [root at nlet-89-3 DISA]# xorpsh -c "show ospf4 neighbor"
> Welcome to XORP on nlet-89-3
> root at nlet-89-3>  show ospf4 neighbor
>    Address         Interface             State      ID              Pri  Dead
> 172.16.1.1       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.1          0     0
> 172.16.1.2       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.2          0     0
> 172.16.1.4       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.4        128     2
> 172.16.1.5       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.5          0     0
> 172.16.1.6       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.6          0     0
> root at nlet-89-3>  [root at nlet-89-3 DISA]#

So, in this case, router 1 has Full adjacency to 3, but 3 shows 1 as Down??
If so, that seems wrong, but maybe I just don't understand point to multi-point
OSPF configs...


>
>
> FINAL:
> root at nlet-89-1>  show ospf4 neighbor
>    Address         Interface             State      ID              Pri  Dead
> 172.16.1.2       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.2          0     0
> 172.16.1.3       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.3        128     3
> 172.16.1.4       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.5          0     0
> 172.16.1.5       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.5          0     0
> 172.16.1.6       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.6          0     0
> 172.17.2.1       eth2.1212/eth2.1212    Full      10.10.1.8          1    31
> root at nlet-89-1>
>
> --
>
> [root at nlet-89-3 DISA]# xorpsh -c "show ospf4 neighbor"
> Welcome to XORP on nlet-89-3
> root at nlet-89-3>  show ospf4 neighbor
>    Address         Interface             State      ID              Pri  Dead
> 172.16.1.1       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.1          0     0
> 172.16.1.2       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.2          0     0
> 172.16.1.4       eth1/eth1              Full      10.10.1.4        128     2
> 172.16.1.5       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.5          0     0
> 172.16.1.6       eth1/eth1              Down      10.10.1.6          0     0
> root at nlet-89-3>  [root at nlet-89-3 DISA]#

3 still shows 1 as Down?

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com




More information about the Xorp-users mailing list