> > on the network. He rightly pointed out that this information is supurflous
> > and thus it shouldn't matter whether it is broadcast or not, as it will
> > always be better to go through the interface "direct" to a host, than
> > through another host on the network to the host.
>
> He is correct, it is superfluous and therefore directly breaches one of
> the more fundamental Internet philosophies, being conservative in what
> you send. He shouldn't be transmitting it.
This information is superfluous for hosts of the subnetwork, but not for
other rspf routers on the ip internetwork. So this link information should
be transmited in the subnetwork, to allow the other posible rspf gateways
with a port on this subnetwork to know it, and transmit it to rest
of the world.
Also, think that not transmiting the link on the subnetwork interface (and
doing it on other interfaces) doens't resolve the problem: this
information can come back from another gateway with an interface in this
subnetwork. So to be coherente, every rspf router should filter all the
links pointing inside the subnetwork where they are transmiting the link
state bulletin.
In other words:
In my opinion the rspf routers in a subnetwork should not be deprived of
the links pointing to this subnetwork. That's a hole in the picture of the
network. This information is not usefull inside our subnetwork, but it is
usefull outside, so it must be transmited ACROSS the network.
Saludos de Julian Amateur Radio Operator License: EA n 53-37081-VI
@ EA4ABB
terhi.victor@logonet.com @@ school
ihw@sjcbhs.org |
terhi.victor@logonet.com | @@ radio (hams only)