On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:45:49AM -0400, Matthew Haas wrote:
> Claudio Jeker wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:53:00AM -0400, Matthew Haas wrote:
> >>Good day.
> >>
> >> I hope this is the appropriate forum for my questions. It is both
> >>OpenBSD and OpenOSPFD related, but quite networking-centric. My
> >>apologies if there is a better forum.
> >
> >Which version of OpenBSD are you using. There was a multicast fix going
> >into bridge(4) some time ago (IIRC after 4.5) that is necessary in your
> >case. On the other hand I don't understand why you need to have the
> >bridge, why not use two different networks one for em(4) and one for
> >tun(4) and let ospfd handle the rest. Running a dynamic routing protocol
> >allows you to do that without much issues.
> >
> >
> Right now a mix of OpenBSD 4.4 and 4.3 machines. So certainly
> nothing that would have taken advantage of that multicast bridge
> fix.
>
> Your statement regarding running separate networks for OSPF makes
> sense.. I'm still in the process of wrapping my head around
> everything, so I believe I may have inadvertently committed an act
> of network micro-management where I should just step back and let
> OSPF handle things. Thank you, I will explore that.
>
> Additionally, is there some repository of OpenOSPFD config files out
> on the internet I could reference?
Not that I know of. The manpage and the example rule file is a start.
Normaly you want to start with a simple setup (one area, no passwords) so
something like:
router-id 0.0.0.1
redistribute static
redistribute connected
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface em0
interface tun1
}
If that is working as expected you can start changing the config.
>
> All examples I can readily find deal only with one "area", and if I
> understand Claudio's suggestion, setting up two areas would be in
> order.
>
You don't need multiple areas. Honestly most smaller networks won't need
multiple areas. Those make only sense if your network has way to many
links (1000+).
> New questions:
>
> - If I just set up two OpenOSPFD areas in the same config file,
> segregating the network interfaces properly, will OpenOSPFD know to
> handle communication between the two?
>
In theory yes but as I said you wont need areas and so don't try to make
it harder then it is.
> - Or do I need to somehow tell it to merge them together? (That's
> where I'm unsure)
>
--
:wq Claudio
