[87153] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Receiving route with metric 0
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Glen Kent)
Wed Dec 7 01:17:11 2005
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:46:37 +0530
From: Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com>
To: crist.clark@globalstar.com
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <43960D73.6050702@globalstar.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Am all the more confused now :)
> >
> > In pre-RFC1058 implementations the sender increments the metric, so a
> > directly-connected route's metric is 1 on the wire.
> >
> > In post-RFC1058 implementations the receiver increments the metric, so
> > a directly-connected route's metric is 0 on the wire.
> >
> > In both cases, the metric in a reciever's database one hop away is 1.
Lets say we have A -- B. A is pre-RFC1058 and B is post RFC 1058. A
sends a directly connected route as 1. B increments this by 1, and
thus stores it as 2.
>
> You appear to have it backwards. As it says in the section you quoted,
>
> "These two viewpoints result in identical update messages being
> sent."
>
> Either approach results in messages with metric 1. The metrics on the
Hmmm .. not sure. A post 1058 implementation would send a metric 0 for
a directly connected route, assuming that the other end would
increment the value and things would work out fine.
Thanks,
Glen
