On 5/06/2013 0:16, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:43:21PM +0300, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
On 01/06/13 18:44, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Can you give this diff a spin? Not much tested but the current way we
define an area as active (having at least one active neighbor) is wrong.
This changes the decision to have at least one active interface
(not IF_STA_DOWN). Not sure if that will cause troubles with passive
interfaces since those are not considered active. At least it seems that
RFC 3509 uses this to define active areas.
Thanks
Just tested this diff and it does not work in my case for passive
interfaces (either carp or loopback).
area 0.0.0.7 {
stub
interface carp8 {passive}
interface lo1 {passive}
}
If I add carp8 or lo1 in area 0.0.0.0 then the routes are announced.
Yeah, while the diff fixed the B flag it did not solve the problem that we
skipped our own networks. This version should solve that (at least it does
in my quick test).
Needs lots of testing since this changes core parts of the route calculation.
Hi Claudio,
I tried your second patch as well. Initially it looks well. When soekris
is the only OSPF router in area 0.0.0.3, the connected network in area
0.0.0.3 is announced properly on the Cisco router.
However, when I add eeepc in area 0.0.0.3 the route remains announced,
BUT it's removed as soon as I stop ospfd on eeepc. Doing a "ospfctl
reload" on soekris brings it back in the initial state (route is
announced on Cisco router).
Also when I disconnect sis2 on soekris (interface in area 0.0.0.3),
soekris is shown as an "ASBR" router on the Cisco router. Plugging sis2
back in makes the state again "ABR/ASBR" (and also gets the connected
network in area 0.0.0.3 back in the routing table).
Looking promising.
G,
Stijn
