Page 1 of 1

OSPF broken?

Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:57 pm
by signal
I think OSPF may be broken in 2.8.11 as far as some functionality:

From the Mikrotik Docs for 2.8.11 OSPF:

"There can be Point-to-Point networks or Multi-Access networks. Multi-Access network can be a broadcast network (a single message can be sent to all routers)"

"You should set the network address exactly the same as the remote point IP address for point-to-point links. The right netmask in this case is /32."

If I have a PtP link say 10.0.0.1/30 on one side, and 10.0.0.2/30 on the other side, I can establish an OSPF neighbor relationship between these 2 routers using:

/routing ospf network
add network=10.0.0.0/30 area=backbone

however, using the ip address, either the local one, or the remote with a /32 does not establish a neighbor relationship.

the problem with using the /30 mask, is that each tries to learn the link from eachother and I get an invalid OSPF route in my table when I already have a connected route. My hope was that using the PtP functionality using /32 mask that this invalid route would go away, and only be announce to other routers in the area. But it seems to be broken.

For example, here is a neighbor relationship on a PtP link, using 10.0.3.0/30:

[admin@somewhere] routing ospf neighbor> print
router-id=10.0.3.1 address=10.0.3.1 priority=1 state="2-Way" state-changes=0
ls-retransmits=0 ls-requests=0 db-summaries=0 dr-id=10.0.3.2 backup-dr-id=10.0.3.1

router-id=10.0.3.2 address=10.0.3.2 priority=1 state="Full" state-changes=6
ls-retransmits=0 ls-requests=0 db-summaries=0 dr-id=10.0.3.2 backup-dr-id=10.0.3.1

Both these routers are set to "redistribute-connected", so each learns its connected 10.0.3.0/30 route from one another, resulting in an invalid route in the table:

5 Io 10.0.3.0/30 110

Changing the "ospf network" statement to use a /32 does not work. I have tried using the local side of the PtP link and the remote side like the docs say, no adjacency is established.

Please advise

Brian

Re: OSPF broken?

Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:20 am
by viktorija
please read OSPF manual.
OSPF works fine and you should not turn you attention to Io routes.


I think OSPF may be broken in 2.8.11 as far as some functionality:

From the Mikrotik Docs for 2.8.11 OSPF:

"There can be Point-to-Point networks or Multi-Access networks. Multi-Access network can be a broadcast network (a single message can be sent to all routers)"

"You should set the network address exactly the same as the remote point IP address for point-to-point links. The right netmask in this case is /32."

If I have a PtP link say 10.0.0.1/30 on one side, and 10.0.0.2/30 on the other side, I can establish an OSPF neighbor relationship between these 2 routers using:

/routing ospf network
add network=10.0.0.0/30 area=backbone

however, using the ip address, either the local one, or the remote with a /32 does not establish a neighbor relationship.

the problem with using the /30 mask, is that each tries to learn the link from eachother and I get an invalid OSPF route in my table when I already have a connected route. My hope was that using the PtP functionality using /32 mask that this invalid route would go away, and only be announce to other routers in the area. But it seems to be broken.

For example, here is a neighbor relationship on a PtP link, using 10.0.3.0/30:

[admin@somewhere] routing ospf neighbor> print
router-id=10.0.3.1 address=10.0.3.1 priority=1 state="2-Way" state-changes=0
ls-retransmits=0 ls-requests=0 db-summaries=0 dr-id=10.0.3.2 backup-dr-id=10.0.3.1

router-id=10.0.3.2 address=10.0.3.2 priority=1 state="Full" state-changes=6
ls-retransmits=0 ls-requests=0 db-summaries=0 dr-id=10.0.3.2 backup-dr-id=10.0.3.1

Both these routers are set to "redistribute-connected", so each learns its connected 10.0.3.0/30 route from one another, resulting in an invalid route in the table:

5 Io 10.0.3.0/30 110

Changing the "ospf network" statement to use a /32 does not work. I have tried using the local side of the PtP link and the remote side like the docs say, no adjacency is established.

Please advise

Brian