Configuration topology is okay. In this case you have area 1 as a transit
area.
It should work fine without any authentication.
The thing to know, however, is that the configuration command is a bit
misleading:
(config-router)#area n virtual-link partner-router-id
Where n is, in this case 1.
The router ids should be set as being the IP address coded on the first
loopback interface. By doing so, you prevent OSPF to pick up the "highest"
IP address among all addresses coded on the physical interfaces. Coding a
loopback interface with an IP address forces OSPF to use that address as the
router ID (so you can control it... and you prevent having bad surprises if
you change IP addresses on the physical interfaces).
Of course the similar statement has to be coded on the partner router...
The misleading thing here is that you code the area as being a
virtual-link...
The full syntax can be found at:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fipr
rp_r/1rfospf.htm#xtocid64137
Kind regards
--
Charles Lehmann, CCNA, CCDA
""Vincent Chong"" a icrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi;
>
> The following scenario
>
>
> [RouteA area0][area0 RouterB area1] RouterC area4]
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |______________Virtual link_______________________|
>
> Does this topology is valid in OSPF?
>
> I belive that the configuration has topology error, but the owener
> said it was
> working fine without authenication.
>
> For I am not familiar with Virtual link, ay comment are welcome?
>
> Best Rgds;
> Vincent Chong
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3156&t=3154
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
