nanog mailing list archives
Re: ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have
From: Jay Hennigan <jay () west net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:26:13 -0800
On 11/22/17 9:51 AM, Aaron Gould wrote:
This is a *single area* ospf environment, that has been stable for years.. But now suddenly is having issues with new ospf neightbor adjacencies , which are riding a 3rd party transport network Anyone ever experienced anything strange with underlying transport network mtu possibly causing ospf neighbor adjacency to be broken ? > I'm asking if the underlying 3rd party transport layer 2 network has a smaller mtu than the endpoint ospf ip interface have, could this cause those ospf neighborsto not fully establish ?
Yes. Easy to check with a ping sweeping a range of sizes and DF set.
and I'm also asking this if the single ospf area has grown large enough to cause some sort of initial database packet to be larger than that underlying 3rd party mtu is providing
Not likely. How many routers and are things relatively stable in terms of routes changing?
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay () impulse net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
Current thread:
- ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have Aaron Gould (Nov 22)
- Re: ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have Jay Hennigan (Nov 22)
- RE: ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have Richard Vander Reyden via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have Rafael Ganascim (Nov 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have Scott Weeks (Nov 27)