At 12:29 AM 7/11/2003 +0000, wj chou wrote: >"In this case, you L1 areas will not usually be the same and the L1 >adjacency between the two "core" routers will not form. If the area is the >same, the L2 adjacency is superfluous. Many large networks are single >area, or single level (ie L1 everyone in one area, or L2 everywhere where >area isn't very relevant.)" > >Can you explain a bit more about this? "you L1 areas will not usually be the >same an the L1 adjacency between the two "core" routers will not form"? I am >new to ISIS...
In the picture, you drew a network like the following: L1----L1L2---L1L2-----L1 This looks very much like a network where two areas area interconnected via a backbone. The backbone in this case is the set of L1L2 routers. In this network, it would be logical to assign different area id's to each L1 process such that they operate as distinct areas. Since ISIS routers exist fully in a single area, this will leave the two L1L2 routers in different areas. Those routers will form an L2 adjacency because the L2 process doesn't look for matching area IDs, but the L1 adjacency process will fail between them as L1 adjacencies require matching area IDs (at least one) Does this help? Pete >Thanks! > >Ellie Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72153&t=72081 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
