[comp.protocols.tcp-ip] Routing on bisected networks

medin@NSIPO.NASA.GOV ("Milo S. Medin", NASA ARC NSI Project Office) (01/31/90)

JQ, this behavior falls out of the way OSPF implements variable length
subnet support.  It could have restricted this, but that would have 
been restricting something potentially useful.  First off, by proper 
configuration (and this is the default way it works I believe) of
areas, you can ensure all the pieces of a subnet must remain in that
area, as when you cross an area boundary, you would normally collapse all
the subnet routes to network routes.  Note that if this was all that
was supported by OSPF, people who had large Class A networks would
not be able to use multiple areas.  So OSPF allows you to collapse that
subnet information to some mask that isn't the natural mask of the 
network number in use.  So you could form 'class B'ish' clusters of
subnets in areas, and still be able to use the Class A net to wire it
all together.

I should point out that any regional use of this feature could be set up
in a way that would prevent external paths outside an area healing the 
partition.  Just use a seperate area for the campus, and don't allow
an non-natural mask collapse to occur.  OSPF however does not allow 
subnet information to come inside from external to the AS, so a regionals
subnet partition won't be healed from outside the system, though of course
the usual things to reconstitute network reachability could work.  

Also note that OSPF has a trust model built in to it.  Intra-area routes
can never be overridden by inter-area routes, which in turn cannot be overridden
by external routes.  Thus if a subnet is reachable by some internal 
path, there is no way for someone outside the area to override it.  So
it's not quite as bad as you think.

Also note that there is no reason why the campus and the regional should
HAVE to run a common IGP.  It has it's advantages and it's disadvantages.
I certainly don't see a reason why a campus shouldn't be it's own area.
It can run it's own authentication scheme, seperate from what
authentication scheme the backbone supports.  Remember that OSPF supports
authentication too, and most people will want to use this capability.

I should point out that people have been screaming for a routing
protocol that supports variable length masks for some time.  A common
case is a site with a large bridged backbone with lots of hosts on it,
and several small subnets hung off of it supporting office automation
groups, clusters of workstations, appletalk nonsense, etc...  So the
IETF built a protocol that did!  We do listen you know!

BTW, I don't think it's really a network management issue, it's just that
us oldtimers don't normally think about things like this working.  All
it takes is some people adjustment.  :-)  It's been my experience 
that most people love having new capabilities, even if they have to
go find some nails to try them out on...  

					Thanks,
					   Milo