Subject: RE: draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04 L3VPN/OSPF WG Last Call

From: "Yegenoglu, Ferit" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:43:43 -0400

Thanks. I had not realized that a separate OSPF virtual link (in
addition to sham link) had to be configured, as mentioned at the end of
Section 4.2.7.2. What can go wrong if the sham link endpoint address is
used as the endpoint address of the OSPF virtual link? Also, are there
any guidelines as to how the OSPF virtual link endpoint addresses are
selected?

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:44 AM
To: Yegenoglu, Ferit
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04 L3VPN/OSPF WG Last Call

> With respect to sham link advertisement on page 8 the draft says 
> "...PE1 may flood to CE1 a type 1 LSA advertising a link to PE2, and 
> PE2 may flood to CE2 a type 1 LSA advertising a link to PE1." Then, on

> Section 4.2.8.4, it says sham link endpoint address routes must not be

> redistributed into OSPF.

What section  4.2.8.4 means is that  the routes of type  "sham link
endpoint address" are to be treated only as specified in section 4.2.7,
and the rules of 4.2.8 (4.2.8.1, 4.2.8.2) do not apply.

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:08:57 -0400

> I had not realized that a  separate OSPF virtual link (in addition to sham
> link) had to be configured 

No, it is not necessary to configure  an OSPF virtual link.  But if there is
an OSPF virtual  link configured for some reason,  its endpoint address must
not be the same as the endpoint address of the sham link.