Talk:Open Shortest Path First

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Open Shortest Path First article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Computing: Networking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Transit area

I suggest adding a "transit" area description. Actually the OSPF areas are either transit or stubby (not mentioning the fancy types building on these elementary types). A backbone is a special case of a transit area. Other areas may be transit as well and they can also import external routes via LSA-5. Also I think it would be nice to describe the basic LSA types and the states of routers when creating neighborhood/adjacencies. I can try to provide this content it the maintainer agrees to :) Paluchpeter 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reordered Open Shortest Path First#OSPF areas and mentioned that the backbone area is a special type of transit area. ~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Designated Router section

No longer in article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The line that read "All routers in an area will form a slave/master relationship with the DR." is incorrect. Should read "All routers in a multi-access network segment will form a slave/master relationship with the DR.". Adjacencies between DR/BDR and other routers is within a local link, within a single broadcast or NBMA segment, not within an entire OSPF area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell DeLong (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 September 2011

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Routing metrics, add N1 & N2 types?

From what I heard, there are also the two types N1 & N2. If the area the router is located in is a not so stubby area or a totally not so stubby area, having a ASBR, those external routes have a different precedens from external routes through ASBRs in other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.103.210 (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OSPFv3 Authentication

No longer in article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article currently states "OSPFv3, running on IPv6, does not support protocol-internal authentication. Instead, it relies on IPv6 protocol security (IPsec)" however RFC7166 (March 2014) adds support for an authentication system analogous to that on OSPFv2. The RFC as a justification states that IPsec is difficult to configure and maintain in some environments which it later refers to as Mobile Ad Hoc Networks.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ABR and LSDB

Is the following sentence correct: "An ABR keeps multiple copies of the link-state database in memory, one for each area to which that router is connected."?

I'd rather say: "An ABR maintains multiple link-state databases in memory, one for each area to which that router is connected."

Using the term "copies" implies similar or identical databases, which is IMHO not the case.

I'm no OSPF expert, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamusiqueduhasard (talk • contribs) 09:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "copies" to "instances" as that is the intention. Thx! --Zac67 (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]