[quagga-dev 5427] Re: [PATCH] RFC 2328, chap 8.1:
paul at clubi.ie
paul at clubi.ie
Mon Jun 2 16:46:08 BST 2008
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Current quagga will try to match it with a connected remote address and
> will fail.
Right. Quagga is broken on PtP at the moment. That's a general
brokenness issue, not a backwards compatible issue. No one using
Quagga today can have it be adjacent with an unnumbered router.
People's network topology isn't going to change just because we fix
> But this is already a known method(I think). Look at the old route
> route [-v] [-A family] add [-net|-host] target [netmask Nm] [gw Gw]
> [metric N] [mss M] [window W] [irtt I] [reject] [mod] [dyn]
> [reinstate] [[dev] If]
> notice the last [[dev] If]?
> Here the details of dev If:
> dev If force the route to be associated with the specified device, as
> the kernel will otherwise try to determine the device on its own
> (by checking already existing routes and device specifications,
> and where the route is added to). In most normal networks you
> won’t need this.
> If dev If is the last option on the command line, the word dev
> may be omitted, as it’s the default. Otherwise the order of the
> route modifiers (metric - netmask - gw - dev) doesn’t matter.
Right, you can specify just a output interface. I know how that works
for connected networks. I'm just not 100% sure how it works with
unnumbered, PtP interfaces. ;) I guess the equivalent of:
route add -net 22.214.171.124/16 dev ppp0
should work though.
(To be honest, I was hoping someone else would pitch in on this point
- there's at least one PPP expert subscribed to -dev ;) ).
> Saw this if the OSPF RFC too:
>  Note that no host route is generated for, and no IP packets can
> be addressed to, interfaces to unnumbered point-to-point networks.
> This is regardless of such an interface's state.
> Not sure what to make of that.
> Yes, but in my suggestion you would have to make routerID a real IP
> address iff you want "unnumbered" PtP links too. Is that too much
> you think?
I think that's more an administrative question.
> Perhaps one could add a command to ospf/zebra that will specify
> such an address, default would be routerID. Then all PtP links that
> have that address will be considered "unnumbered". That way you
> don't have to flag every PtP i/f it is numbered or unnumbered.
Yes, zebra will have to automatically catch PtP addresses somehow. I
suspect the easiest would be for zebra to advertise any shared
address only as a loopback address.
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.ie paul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
The more things change, the more they stay insane.
More information about the Quagga-dev