Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]

Tue, 29 May 2001 10:08:44 -0700 

Im thinking that route maps  which increase the path cost might be your best
bet.

Peter Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist
Network Engineer
Planetary Networks
535 West 34th Street
New York, NY
10001
Cell:    (516) 782.1535
Desk: (646) 792.2395
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax:    (646) 792.2396
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Schwantz" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]


> Peter,
> Thanks for your input. I hope my description of the geographical topology
in
> another post should point out why I want my traffic to route in the manner
I
> have described. Taking down the link between C and D is not an option. You
> mentioned Virtual links. I always thought they were used to link an area
to
> area 0. I don't see how it can be applied to my case. I can take the easy
> way out and place all the routers in area 0 but want to use that action as
> my last resort.
>
> kevin
>
> ""Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist""  wrote in
> message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > well, since C and D are in the same area they have the tame topology DB.
> > they KNOW the best route to each other and are going to use it.
> > the tunnel idea is kinda stupid.
> > first let me ask why you would want traffic between two directly
connected
> > routers to NOT use that link?
> >
> > ...But anyway, i would suggest policy routing in this case, or if there
is
> a
> > large  traffic volume (too much for routers C and D to process switch,
> make
> > static routes.
> >
> > other options include putting C and D in their own areas, and making
each
> a
> > stub, and get rid of that link between C and D. that would be the best
> > idea...
> >
> > play with plath costs,
> > and you might try a virtual link as well between C and D,
> > but break glass only in case of emergency, if you know what i mean =P
> >
> > -Peter
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kevin Schwantz"
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
> >
> >
> > > routerA            routerB
> > >                  AREA0--------AREA0
> > >                      |                        |
> > >                   routerC              routerD
> > >                  AREA1---------AREA1
> > >
> > >
> > > Since we are on the topic of OSPF, could someone help me out on the
> > scenario
> > > above?
> > >
> > > Routers A and B have interfaces  in Area 0 and Area1. I want traffic
> from
> > > routerA destined for routerD to go via router B. This is not the case
in
> > my
> > > network because I realise that routerA  prefers Intra-Area routes and
> thus
> > > would route traffic to routerD via routerC.
> > > What tweaks must I make in order to force the traffic from routerA to
> > > routerD to go via routerB ? Someone suggested building a GRE tunnel
> > between
> > > routerA and routerB and then configure the tunnel to be in AREA1.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions?
> > >
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > >
> > > ""W. Alan Robertson""  wrote in message
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > The actual traffic will not be routed up to area 0...  Area 0 has
been
> > > > extended
> > > > down to R2, so R2 is now a backbone router.  R2 has interfaces in 3
> > areas
> > > > now:
> > > > Area1, Area2, and Area0 by means of it's virtual link.
> > > >
> > > > Any traffic originating in Area2 destined for Area1 will be routed
> > > directly
> > > > by
> > > > R2.  This satisfies the "Interarea traffic must traverse the
backbone"
> > > rule,
> > > > because R2 *is* a backbone router.
> > > >
> > > > This is not theory...  It is fact.
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Andrew Larkins"
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 10:13 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > agreed....to area 0 then on to the intended area
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Circusnuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: 28 May 2001 15:50
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck- my answer is Yes.  The traffic from the Virtual Linked
> > psuedo-ABR
> > > > > passes back to Area 0, before it's sent onto the intended Area
(even
> > if
> > > > it's
> > > > > directly connected).
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Chuck Larrieu
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:59 PM
> > > > > Subject: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ever wonder what the CCIE candidates talk about on the CCIE
list?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The following message came through today. I thought the bright
> folks
> > > on
> > > > > this
> > > > > > list might be curious, and might want to venture an answer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Begin original question:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder if there is anybody who remembers the discussion on
> Virtual
> > > > > > Links in OSPF. It was posted some time ago but I can't seem to
> find
> > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The scenario was something like this:
> > > > > > ________  _______  _______
> > > > > > |Area 0   |  |Area1|    |Area2|
> > > > > > |    R0    |--| R1     |--| R2     |
> > > > > > |______|   |_____|    |_____|
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a virtual link from area 2 to Area 0 via Area1. Traffic
> > needs
> > > to
> > > > > > get to R1 in Area 1 from R2 in Area 2. Assume that the virtual
> link
> > > has
> > > > to
> > > > > > use R1 (To create the V.Link). Does the traffic flow passed R1
(in
> > > Area
> > > > 1)
> > > > > > to Area 0 and then back to area 1, or does the actual flow just
to
> > R1
> > > > from
> > > > > > R2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I cant remember the conclusion, and I cant seem to find it on
the
> > > > > archives.
> > > > > > Quite interesting issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > End of original question
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chuck
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One IOS to forward them all.
> > > > > > One IOS to find them.
> > > > > > One IOS to summarize them all
> > > > > > And in the routing table bind them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -JRR Chambers-
> > > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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=6257&t=6076
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to