On 01/06/13 18:44, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Can you give this diff a spin? Not much tested but the current way we
define an area as active (having at least one active neighbor) is wrong.
This changes the decision to have at least one active interface
(not IF_STA_DOWN). Not sure if that will cause troubles with passive
interfaces since those are not considered active. At least it seems that
RFC 3509 uses this to define active areas.
Thanks
Just tested this diff and it does not work in my case for passive
interfaces (either carp or loopback).
area 0.0.0.7 {
stub
interface carp8 {passive}
interface lo1 {passive}
}
If I add carp8 or lo1 in area 0.0.0.0 then the routes are announced.
Giannis
