Bird to quagga interoperation
santiago at crfreenet.org
Mon Feb 9 15:36:27 CET 2009
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:27:20PM +0100, Vonlanthen, Elmar wrote:
> > > In the thread "BIRD <-> Quagga Compatiblity" (started in
> > May, 2007) I
> > > have already posted some informations.
> > > If you haven't access to the old thread, I could post the
> > mails/infos
> > > again.
> > Thank you for a hint, i found that thread.
> > > Is possible that Quagga does something wrong?
> > Perhaps Quagga has a different interpretation of some terms
> > in OSPF RFC. There are Linux networking configurations (for
> > example ptp network addresses) that does not fit well to
> > assumptions used in OSPF RFC.
> I have no problem to apply this little patch for every new release.
> But what is the difference between these two lines?
> 1.)ln->data = ifa->iface->index;
> 2.)ln->data = ipa_to_u32(ifa->iface->addr->ip);
RFC expects that network link has either 'classical' IP addresses
from one subnet or are 'unnumbered'. The first line is the rule for
LSA data in a case of 'unnumbered' interface and second line is
the rule for 'classical' IP subnet interface. Linux PtP addresses
does not fit well to any of these cases and Bird handles them
as 'unnumbered'. Perhaps Quagga handles them in a different
manner and do some consistency checking.
So i would like do some research about this issue and probably communicate
this with Quagga developers to have consistent handling of Linux-specific
network setting before merging some changes to it.
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo
Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at crfreenet.org)
OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net)
"To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Bird-users