>-----Original Message----- >From: Bruce Robertson [SMTP:bruce@greatbasin.com] >Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 1997 12:59 AM >To: Dave Van Allen >Cc: ascend-users@bungi.com >Subject: Re: (ASCEND) 5.0Ai13 Fatal Error's > >>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Van Allen <dave@fast.net> writes: > > Dave> Bruce, OSPF on the Maxen is 80% implemented. The 20% that is > Dave> not deals with STUB areas and more complex, yet very > Dave> necessary parts of the protocol. Ascend is *very* aware of > Dave> the issues. > >Then how come in all my trouble tickets and explanations of problems >they have never mentioned to *me* that it is only 80% implemented? > >I can answer that. This question has come up several times before, here, on >other topics. If Ascend needs additional info to source from, tell your >Ascend technical contact to check with 2nd level, or ask them to query Eric >Presworski. > > Dave> Caveat: The entire OSFP group is all in Area 0. > >Not here. We have many areas. > >Not with Maxen - if you're trying to do that, that's your problem. We wish >to do that too someday, but it simply can't be done reliably yet. > > > Dave> no authentication is used (that's broken too) > >That's news to me as well. We've been attempting to use >authentication since day one. Aren't you nervous opening up the >routing in your network to your more sophisticated customers? > >We filter elsewhere. It's not totally ideal and I can't see a way given our >implementation to do any damage. > > Dave> the OSPF router options are very standard and simple in the Max > Dave> config's. > >We do just the basics as well, and don't allow the Maxen to be any >sort of designated router. > >Good. Although, Maxen make OK DR's as long as they are not overloaded to >begin with, and the LSD is small enough. We've not seen a problem there. > > > Dave> Leaving out everything from a router aspect, If you have > Dave> this anything close to this type of environment then I am > Dave> lost as to why you are having so many problems and I hope > Dave> the above may help you solve the mystery. > >We're attempting to run OSPF throughout the entire network. I'm not >really interested in summarizing between areas using a different >protocol. I guess my point is that I shouldn't have to. Where does >Ascend state publicly that their OSPF implementation is known to be >imcomplete? > >At the same place where they tell you that the Stacking doesn't work. :-) > >I don't even want to get into the stacking snafu. > > >Dave (dave@fast.net) > ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com To get FAQ'd: <<A HREF="http://www.shore.net/~dreaming/ascend-faq">http://www.shore.net/~dreaming/ascend-faq</A>> or <<A HREF="ftp://ftp.shore.net/members/dreaming/ascend-faq.txt">ftp://ftp.shore.net/members/dreaming/ascend-faq.txt</A>> </PRE> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <HR> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg05831.html">RE: (ASCEND) 5.0Ai13 Fatal Error's</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg05825.html">Re: (ASCEND) Hung up ALL SESSIONS</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg05812.html">RE: (ASCEND) 5.0Ai13 Fatal Error's</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg05831.html">RE: (ASCEND) 5.0Ai13 Fatal Error's</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="mail123.html#05827"><STRONG>Main</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thrd53.html#05827"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> </BODY> </HTML>