From owner-freebsd-net Tue Feb 8 19:22:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail-03-real.cdsnet.net (mail-03-real.cdsnet.net [204.118.244.93]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FD12471D for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:39:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 48627 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2000 23:39:10 -0000 Received: from schizo.cdsnet.net (204.118.244.32) by mail-03-real.cdsnet.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 2000 23:39:10 -0000 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:36:48 -0800 (PST) From: Jaye Mathisen X-Sender: mrcpu@schizo.cdsnet.net To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: OSPF route propogation via zebra, gated with FreeBSD 3.4 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org My Cisco OSPF networks works just like I think it should. But I've been putting in FreeBSD routers for it's more sophisticated abilities, but I'm getting stuck in one small area. With the following configuration: Internet -> A -> B -> C -> D where A/B/C/D are all FreeBSD boxes/routers, some running gated, some running zebra while I experiment. Given that the total # of routers will be small, I plan on just lumping everything into the backbone area. As it sits right now, with everything configured in area 0, A B C see all their connected/static routes. C sees routes from D, but doesn't propogate them to B or A. If D is in area 0 as well, is it a requirement that there be a virtual link from D to A? My understanding of the virtual link requirement was only if D was in a different area, then D also needed connectivity to the backbone area. I'm tempted to convert everything to bgp, which I have more experience with, and see if it works getter. Either way is fine with me... Any tips appreciated. Can send config files on request, they're changing pretty fast as I try stuff. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message