Sorry, the last link about the "ospf standards" was wrong in the last email. Here's the correct one.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos93/swconfig-routing/ospf-standards.html#id-11626548 max On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Max Pierson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Steve, > > Sorry for the delay, but I finally got some time away from 4th of July > visitors to drop in some config in Junos. Junos seems to be able to do > multiple instances of OSPFv3 (and v2 for that matter) with no issues. The > config I used worked as expected. > > RFC 2740 - 2.4. Explicit Support for Multiple Instances per Link > > In IOS we have the interface commands for ospfv3 that actually makes use > the "instance" syntax. In Junos, it's quite different in how you would > accomplish having an interface exist in multiple areas. There's no > "instance" syntax on the interface. You have to create forwarding instances > for the areas and import/export routes to and from those tables to achieve > the wanted prefix (or link) to be added to the main or global routing table. > This is done through a series of policy and protocol statements that would > be similar to configuring route-maps in IOS. I was able to get this working > with no issues in ospfv2 and ospfv3. I wanted to get a wireshark trace to > make sure that the ospfv3 headers actually have the "instance ID" field as > specified in the RFC, but did not have time. Since everything seemed to > work, I would have to assume that it does conform to the RFC, even though > there's no "instance" syntax. Here's a link that describes how to accomplish > multi-area ospfv2. > > > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.1/topics/usage-guidelines/routing-configuring-multiarea-adjacency-in-ospfv2.html > > Another link that shows multiple instances of ospf (v2 or v3). > > > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.1/topics/usage-guidelines/routing-configuring-multiple-instances-of-ospf.html > > And lastly, a link that shows supported RFC's in the version of Junos I > used. > > > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos93/swconfig-routing/frameset.html > > > The only thing I was not quite able to understand is why RFC 5340 is not > listed anywhere in the Juniper docs. Since it obsoletes RFC 2740, I figured > it would be implemented instead of 2740 in the "ospf standards" link above. > I cannot find it listed anywhere at the moment, but now that has me curious. > It could be possible that the "draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-10" support for > address families plus RFC 2740 covers everything in RFC 5340, but I am still > reading up on the draft and comparing it to the current RFC to see if that > is the case, which I do not believe it is. > > Long story short, I was able to get this working in Junos. > > So either we're missing something here about how to get a "link" in ospfv3 > configured for multi-areas, or something in IOS isn't allowing for that to > happen. I'm am updating some code on my Cisco lab routers to see if it's an > IOS issue or an operator issue :) > > Maybe Marko or someone that's actually gotten this working before can chime > in with some clue for us. I've even searched for config examples in IOS, but > all I could find was NX-OS examples. > > regards, > max > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Di Bias, Steve > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Roger that Max, and please post your findings for us >> >> Max Pierson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hey Steve, >> >> That's a good idea. I have an M10 I can fire up to see if it exhibits >> the same behavior. I'm mobile at the moment, but will test when possible and >> reply back with my findings. >> >> max >> >> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Di Bias, Steve >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hey Max, >>> >>> Isn't that strange? Do you have any Juniper routers laying around to test >>> on? Maybe its a Cisco thing??? >>> >>> Max Pierson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> My mistake. That's what I get for skimming through threads lol. I >>> missed that part in your second post. >>> >>> That is strange indeed. I got the same when I added a second instance >>> as well. It just overwrites the previous instance config. >>> >>> Would be nice if they gave an example in the docs. Not finding >>> any examples where it shows it, or as you stated, i'm missing something. >>> >>> m >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Di Bias, Steve <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Max in mhy testing its not possible to configure multiple instances on a >>>> single interface, give it a try... >>>> >>>> Max Pierson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >What can i do with instances i cannot do with processes ? >>>> >>>> Hi Alef, >>>> >>>> I believe it's to allow multiple instances of ospf to run on a single >>>> interface. OSPF for ipv4 does not allow for this if i'm not mistaken. >>>> >>>> Here's the comparison of the two versions in the doc cd (not sure why >>>> we're still calling it doc "cd" lol). >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-ospf_ps6441_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html#wp1069821 >>>> >>>> I'm sure Marko will correct me if i'm wrong here :) >>>> >>>> - >>>> m >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Alef <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Steve, >>>>> That makes sense what you are doing. Labbing it up as we speak. >>>>> As far as multiple proces id's on the same router, i'm thinking i >>>>> should think about it as we would with a VRF instance? I.e. you would set >>>>> another proces up to interface with a different, separate router process. >>>>> So >>>>> as you said, proces 1 and proces 100 on 2 separate routers would >>>>> communicate, now if i would want to setup a new proces id to communicate >>>>> with a new different network and keep them separate for various reasons >>>>> that's why we would setup a new ospf process. And if we wanted then to >>>>> interface with the multiple processes on the same router we'd need to use >>>>> redistribution ofcourse. >>>>> >>>>> The more i think about it the more i get it. Your explanation took me >>>>> some time but i think the penny dropped :-) >>>>> >>>>> However, with the risk of sounding stupid, proces id's still don't seem >>>>> different to me from instances. What can i do with instances i cannot do >>>>> with processes ? I could run 10 ospf process on router a which i would >>>>> interface with 10 on router b, how is that different from using instances? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Alef >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 2, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Di Bias, Steve wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Hey Alef, >>>>> > >>>>> > I just labbed this up and it makes perfect sense now. The >>>>> documentation states that you can run multiple instances on a single link, >>>>> not a single interface. This would explain why you can only configure one >>>>> instance per interface :) >>>>> > >>>>> > I'm using the example given in my previous post that's modified for >>>>> what I just labbed up. >>>>> > >>>>> > Let's say we have four routers (R4, R5, R6, and R7) that are >>>>> connected to a common link (VLAN 567) R4 and R6 belong to an AS different >>>>> from the one to which R5 and R7 belong. To exchange OSPF packets, R4 and >>>>> R6 >>>>> will use a different Instance ID from R5 and R7. If the receiving router >>>>> does not recognize the Instance ID, it discards the packet and a neighbor >>>>> adjacency will not form. If we wanted to do this for OSPFv2 we would have >>>>> had to use the authentication field, which no longer exists in OSPFv3. >>>>> > >>>>> > Lab Config >>>>> > >>>>> > On the VLAN 567 links >>>>> > >>>>> > R4 >>>>> > ipv6 unicast-routing >>>>> > inter fa0/0 >>>>> > ipv6 address FD00:5:6:7::4/64 >>>>> > ipv6 ospf 1 area 0 instance 2 >>>>> > >>>>> > R5 >>>>> > ipv6 unicast-routing >>>>> > inter eth0/0 >>>>> > ipv6 addr fd00:5:6:7::5/64 >>>>> > ipv6 ospf 1 area 0 instance 1 >>>>> > >>>>> > R6 >>>>> > ipv6 unicast-routing >>>>> > inter eth0/0 >>>>> > ipv6 addr fd00:5:6:7::6/64 >>>>> > ipv6 ospf 1 area 0 instance 2 >>>>> > >>>>> > R7 >>>>> > ipv6 unicast-routing >>>>> > inter eth0/0 >>>>> > ipv6 addr fd00:5:6:7::7/64 >>>>> > ipv6 ospf 1 area 0 instance 1 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > When I did this the behavior seen was fully expected. >>>>> > >>>>> > R4 peered with R6 but not with R5 or R7 >>>>> > R6 peered with R4 but not with R5 or R7 >>>>> > R5 peered with R7 but not with R4 or R6 >>>>> > R7 peered with R5 but not with R4 or R6 >>>>> > >>>>> > R5#sh ipv6 osp ne >>>>> > Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Interface ID >>>>> Interface >>>>> > 200.0.0.7 1 FULL/DR 00:00:30 4 >>>>> Ethernet0/0 >>>>> > >>>>> > R6(config-if)#do sh ipv ospf ne >>>>> > >>>>> > Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Interface ID >>>>> Interface >>>>> > 200.0.0.4 1 FULL/BDR 00:00:35 4 >>>>> Ethernet0/0 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > One thing I that baffled me was that I couldn't see anything in my >>>>> debugs about a mismatched OSPF instances. I was running the following >>>>> debugs >>>>> on all routers: >>>>> > >>>>> > Debug ipv6 packet detail >>>>> > Debug ipv6 ospf adj >>>>> > Debug ipv6 ospf hello >>>>> > >>>>> > Not sure why this would be, but there was nothing in there about >>>>> mismatch instances at all. >>>>> > >>>>> > Lab it up using IPv4 and IPv6 OSPF when you can to see what you find. >>>>> > >>>>> > Cheers! >>>>> > >>>>> > Thank you, >>>>> > >>>>> > Steve E. Di Bias >>>>> > Network Engineer - Information Systems >>>>> > Valley Health System - Las Vegas >>>>> > Office - 702- 369-7594 >>>>> > Cell - 702-241-1801 >>>>> > [email protected] >>>>> > >>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>> > From: [email protected] [mailto: >>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Di Bias, Steve >>>>> > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:09 AM >>>>> > To: Alef >>>>> > Cc: [email protected] IE >>>>> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] ospfv3 instances vs ospf proces id's ? >>>>> > >>>>> > Alef, that's not what I'm saying... >>>>> > >>>>> > Remember that process ID's are locally significant, so in the event >>>>> I'm running R1 as process ID 1 (router ospf 1) and R2 as process ID 2 >>>>> (router ospf 2)will they peer up and share routes with each other? The >>>>> answer here is yes, because the process ID is only "locally" significant, >>>>> so >>>>> in this case we do share routes. >>>>> > >>>>> > Now in the event we are running two process ID's (1 and 2) on the >>>>> same router (e.x. R1), will the routes be shared between the two process >>>>> ID's? Nope! If you want to share routes in this case you have to >>>>> redistribute between the two routing processes. >>>>> > >>>>> > So why run separate process ID's on the same router? Remember that >>>>> OSPF rule about routers within the same area having identical LSDB's? So >>>>> what happens if we need to peer up with some other entity and wanted to >>>>> share some, but not all of our OSPF routes? Exactly, we could just run >>>>> another process and redistribute ONLY the routes we need to share with >>>>> them. >>>>> > >>>>> > For RIPng I don't think they call them instances, but process ID's (I >>>>> think). >>>>> > >>>>> > R1(config-if)#ipv6 rip ? >>>>> > WORD User selected string identifying this RIP process >>>>> > >>>>> > R1(config-if)#do sh ipv6 proto >>>>> > IPv6 Routing Protocol is "rip IPexpert" >>>>> > Interfaces: >>>>> > FastEthernet0/0 >>>>> > Redistribution: >>>>> > None >>>>> > IPv6 Routing Protocol is "rip CCIE" >>>>> > Interfaces: >>>>> > FastEthernet0/1 >>>>> > Redistribution: >>>>> > >>>>> > Now back to OSPFv3... >>>>> > >>>>> > In the reference material and links I posted below there are some >>>>> discrepancies I'm finding during my testing of this. >>>>> > >>>>> > For example, the documentation states that you can run more than one >>>>> instance per interface, but is this really true? Nope! Not in my testing. >>>>> > >>>>> > For example, if I configure F0/0 to run in instance 1 and instance 2 >>>>> the latter will overwrite the former. >>>>> > >>>>> > interface FastEthernet0/0 >>>>> > ipv6 address FD00:BAD:BEEF:BABE::1/64 >>>>> > ipv6 address FE80::1 link-local >>>>> > ipv6 ospf 1 area 0 instance 1 >>>>> > ipv6 ospf 1 area 0 instance 2 >>>>> > >>>>> > R1(config-if)#do sh run int fa0/0 >>>>> > Building configuration... >>>>> > >>>>> > Current configuration : 458 bytes >>>>> > ! >>>>> > interface FastEthernet0/0 >>>>> > ip address 150.100.12.1 255.255.255.0 >>>>> > ipv6 address FD00:BAD:BEEF:BABE::1/64 >>>>> > ipv6 address FE80::1 link-local >>>>> > ipv6 ospf 1 area 0 instance 2 >>>>> > >>>>> > So either I don't understand or the documentation is wrong?? >>>>> > >>>>> > If anyone has any insight please let me know. >>>>> > >>>>> > HAPPY 4TH of July everyone!!! >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Thank you, >>>>> > >>>>> > Steve Di Bias >>>>> > Network Engineer - Information Systems >>>>> > Valley Health System - Las Vegas >>>>> > Office - 702- 369-7594 >>>>> > Cell - 702-241-1801 >>>>> > [email protected] >>>>> > >>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>> > From: Alef [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 11:17 AM >>>>> > To: Di Bias, Steve >>>>> > Cc: [email protected] IE >>>>> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] ospfv3 instances vs ospf proces id's ? >>>>> > >>>>> > I guess i am. Are you saying that different proces id's have access >>>>> to the same routes? i.e. if i would advertise one thing in one routing >>>>> process would it be available in the other? >>>>> > >>>>> > I always thought the opposite. I knew they were different routing >>>>> processes, but i also told a aspect of that would be that they would not >>>>> have access to eachother's databases. If not, what exactly is actually the >>>>> point of having multiple routing processes if there is no particular >>>>> difference? >>>>> > >>>>> > In RIPng, is >>>>> > ipv6 router rip cisco12 >>>>> > >>>>> > also a instance ? >>>>> > On Jun 30, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Di Bias, Steve wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Hey Alef, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I think you're confusing process ID's with instances, they are >>>>> different. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> For example in OSPFv2 you could run multiple processes like "router >>>>> ospf 1" and "router ospf 2" but with IPv6 you can run different instances, >>>>> for example: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Inter s0/0/0 >>>>> >> Ipv6 addr fd00:BAD:BEAF:BABE::2/64 >>>>> >> ipv6 ospf 100 area 1 instance 2 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> So here the process ID is "100" the area is "1" and the instance is >>>>> "2" >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This might help! >>>>> >> >>>>> >> "The Instance ID Identifies the OSPF instance to which this packet >>>>> belongs. The Instance ID is an 8-bit number assigned to each interface of >>>>> the router. The default value is 0. The Instance ID enables multiple OSPF >>>>> protocol instances to run on a single link. If the receiving router does >>>>> not >>>>> recognize the Instance ID, it discards the packet. For example, routers A, >>>>> B, C, and D are connected to a common link n. A and B belong to an AS >>>>> different from the one to which C and D belong. To exchange OSPF packets, >>>>> A >>>>> and B will use a different Instance ID from C and D. This prevents routers >>>>> from accepting incorrect OSPF packets. In OSPF for IPv4, this was done >>>>> using >>>>> the Authentication field, which no longer exists in OSPF for IPv6." >>>>> >> >>>>> >> From the IETF >>>>> >> >>>>> >> OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] includes a mechanism for supporting multiple >>>>> >> instances on the same link. OSPFv2 [OSPFV2] could benefit from >>>>> such >>>>> >> a mechanism in order to support multiple routing domains on the >>>>> same >>>>> >> subnet. The OSPFv2 instance ID is reserved for support of separate >>>>> >> OSPFv2 protocol instances. This is different from OSPFv3 where it >>>>> >> could be used for other purposes such as putting the same link in >>>>> >> multiple areas. OSPFv2 supports this capability using a separate >>>>> >> subnet or the OSPF multi-area adjacency capability [MULTI-AREA]. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-multi-instance-04 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> More from the IETF >>>>> >> >>>>> >> OSPFv3 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Most of the checks for OSPFv3 are similar to that of OSPFv2. The >>>>> >> main points of differences are: - >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - OSPFv3 runs on a per link basis instead of a per subnet basis. >>>>> >> The check for network mask is not done. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Instance ID field (non-existent in OSPFv2) on the link is >>>>> >> matched with the incoming ID in Hellos. Only if the Instance- >>>>> >> Id's match do we actually form adjacencies. This allows >>>>> multiple >>>>> >> instances of OSPF to run on a single link. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Also check out the following RFC's >>>>> >> >>>>> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5340.txt >>>>> >> >>>>> >> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2740.html >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 2.4. Explicit Support for Multiple Instances per Link >>>>> >> >>>>> >> OSPF now supports the ability to run multiple OSPF protocol >>>>> instances >>>>> >> on a single link. For example, this may be required on a NAP >>>>> segment >>>>> >> shared between several providers. Providers may be supporting >>>>> >> separate OSPF routing domains that wish to remain separate even >>>>> >> though they have one or more physical network segments (i.e., >>>>> links) >>>>> >> in common. In OSPF for IPv4, this was supported in a haphazard >>>>> >> fashion using the authentication fields in the OSPF for IPv4 >>>>> header. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Another use for running multiple OSPF instances is if you want, for >>>>> >> one reason or another, to have a single link belong to two or more >>>>> >> OSPF areas. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Support for multiple protocol instances on a link is accomplished >>>>> via >>>>> >> an "Instance ID" contained in the OSPF packet header and OSPF >>>>> >> interface structures. Instance ID solely affects the reception of >>>>> >> OSPF packets. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> HTH >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Thank you, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Steve Di Bias >>>>> >> Network Engineer - Information Systems >>>>> >> Valley Health System - Las Vegas >>>>> >> Office - 702- 369-7594 >>>>> >> Cell - 702-241-1801 >>>>> >> [email protected] >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >> From: [email protected] [mailto: >>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Alef >>>>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:27 AM >>>>> >> To: [email protected] IE >>>>> >> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] ospfv3 instances vs ospf proces id's ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I used to think that you can define as many ospf processes as you >>>>> like, however on the cisco site it states that "unlike ospf v2, with ospv3 >>>>> you can have multiple instances", as if ospv3 is the first to allow this >>>>> possibility? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> is there a difference? >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, >>>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may >>>>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, >>>>> use, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. If >>>>> this >>>>> was sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and >>>>> destroy all copies of the original message. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may >>>>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, >>>>> use, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. If >>>>> this >>>>> was sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and >>>>> destroy all copies of the original message. >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, >>>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com >>>>> > >>>>> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may >>>>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, >>>>> use, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. If >>>>> this >>>>> was sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and >>>>> destroy all copies of the original message. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, >>>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com >>>>> >>>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >>>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, >>>> use, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited, and may >>>> be punishable by law. If this was sent to you in error, please notify the >>>> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, >>> use, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited, and may >>> be punishable by law. If this was sent to you in error, please notify the >>> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. >>> >> >> >> >> >> UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, >> use, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited, and may >> be punishable by law. If this was sent to you in error, please notify the >> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
