15 Jan
2016
15 Jan
'16
9:06 p.m.
On 2016-01-15 18:35, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
I wonder why. It makes just as much sense in one place as in the other, not to mention
that it seems odd to have different algorithms. Or is there a parameter that controls
"max splits" which is separate for layer 1 and layer 2, and has different
defaults for the two?
I don't know for sure, but is speculating. Since the actual path cost is
not known, and only the level 2 cost, it makes less sense at that level.
However, more relevant is that on my area routers, I do not have access
to that parameter. I know I've seen/had it n systems, but the area
routers are all I have at the moment, and on those, the feature seems
disabled.
Which also begs the question, will the machine identify with a different
version if it only acts as a level 1 router... Should be investigated at
some point...
(The parameter I'm refering to is EXECUTOR MAX PATH SPLIT)
Johnny
On Jan 15, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2016-01-15 16:18, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
You have the tcpdump... :-)
Yes. The answer is 2.0.0. Interesting. Then again, equal cost splitting affects what
NSP sees, and it doesn't know or care about routing version numbers.
On Jan 15, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
RSX does equal path cost splitting. However, I don't know if that applies to
intra-area traffic.
Interesting. Does it advertise routing version 2.0.0 (Phase IV) or 2.1.0 (Phase IV+)? I
remembered some other differences between the two but had forgotten about equal cost path
splitting until the subject came up. I'm fairly sure that it is another one of the
changes between the two. It sure
would be interesting to locate a copy of the Routing 2.1.0 spec.
Yes.
By the way, I'm pretty sure that equal path cost splitting is not done on area
routing.