Re: OSPF Order of Preference

Hi Nick,

I dont think the Forwarding Address should be part of the criteria because
when two type 5 LSAs (assuming E1) to the same destination exists, one with
FW address set and the other without.

In this case, the LSA to be installed in the routing table of a router is
based on the comparison that router's metric to the ASBR that generated the
LSA with a forwarding address of 0.0.0.0 to that router's metric to reach
the forwarding address of X , which was set for the LSA generated by the
ASBR.

Now assuming the metric was equal, I would believe the result is load
balancing across the two paths. Hope that someone can shed more light on
this. (equal costs with FW and without FW)

Regards

Lejoe

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Nicholas Davitashvili <nickda_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> Additional criteria of course would be that costs are equal.
>
> Nick
> GREENNET
> Lat: 41043'25.46"N
> Long: 44045'45.60"E
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Nicholas Davitashvili
> <nickda_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hi Group,
> >
> > If anyone can confirm this order of preference in OSPF, I'd be really
> > greatful.
> > If it is wrong, please give the correct order:
> >
> > 1. O - OSPF Intra-Area
> > 2. IA - OSPF Inter-Area
> > 3. E1 /w FA -- External Type 1 With Forwarding Address
> > 4. N1 /w FA
> > 5. E1 /wo FA -- Ext. Type 1 with Forwarding Address set to 0.0.0.0
> > 6. N1 /wo FA
> > 7. E2 /w FA
> > 8. N2 /w FA
> > 9. E2 /wo FA
> > 10. N2 /wo FA
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Nick
> > GREENNET
> > Lat: 41043'25.46"N
> > Long: 44045'45.60"E

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sat Jul 04 2009 - 17:51:19 ART