I am trying to setup a OSPF area between a Juniper MX80 and a Quagga router. The Quagga router has OSPF configured and network 199.192.100.0/28 advertised in the hello packet. But the Juniper MX80 is rejecting it with the following error:
Jan 22 04:14:38.371296 OSPF packet ignored: subnet mismatch from 199.192.100.2 on intf ae0.0 area 0.0.0.0 Jan 22 04:14:38.371515 OSPF rcvd Hello 199.192.100.2 -> 224.0.0.5 (ae0.0 IFL 336 area 0.0.0.0) Jan 22 04:14:38.371538 Version 2, length 44, ID 10.10.90.4, area 0.0.0.0 Jan 22 04:14:38.371559 checksum 0x0, authtype 0 Jan 22 04:14:38.371581 mask 255.255.255.240, hello_ivl 10, opts 0x2, prio 1 Jan 22 04:14:38.371602 dead_ivl 40, DR 199.192.100.2, BDR 0.0.0.0
The relevant parts of the config are:
Juniper MX80:
ashinn@mx2# show interfaces ae0 aggregated-ether-options { lacp { active; } } unit 0 { family inet { address 199.192.100.253/30; } } ashinn@mx2# show protocols ospf export redistributeconnected; area 0.0.0.0 { area-range 199.192.100.0/28; interface xe-0/0/1.0; interface ae0.0 { interface-type p2p; } }
Interface ae0.0 is the interface which faces the Quagga router bond0 interface:
! interface bond0 ip ospf cost 50 ipv6 nd suppress-ra ! router ospf log-adjacency-changes redistribute kernel redistribute connected network 199.192.100.0/28 area 0.0.0.0 neighbor 199.192.100.253 !
And the Quagga interface for bond0:
[ashinn@lb2 ~]$ ip addr show dev bond0 8: bond0: mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP link/ether 00:25:90:27:8a:be brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 199.192.100.254/30 brd 199.192.100.255 scope global bond0 inet 199.192.100.2/28 scope global bond0 inet6 fe80::225:90ff:fe27:8abe/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
I have tried without the neighbor statement
in Quagga and also tried setting ip ospf network point-to-point
in Quagga also. Neither seem to make any difference.
I found this article http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB23533&cat=T1600_1&actp=LIST&showDraft=false which seems to explain the same issue. But it only suggests to correct the subnet mask mismatch. Where might this mismatch be? If it is conflicting with the /30 point to point interface subnet, then why?