As far as I can see, both scenarios would work, as long as you have an area
0 defined somewhere. If you put the links into individual area, then you
would at least have to have area 0 on the ethernet or a loopback on the hub
router.
A router does not implicitly assume the role of backbone router through
having multiple areas connected unless one of them is area zero.
If for example you had one router connected to area 1 and area 2, the router
would maintain a database for both areas, but there would be no type 3 LSA's
or inter area routes in either database. So other area 1 routers , for
instance, would have no knowledge of area 2 routes and vice-versa. By
definition, all inter-area routes must go via the backbone. No backbone, no
inter area routes.
I have been tripped up by this in the lab.
While the above would work, it would probably not be advisable as you have
one router maintaining 5 link state databases. I agree with the others that
the better solution (unless your hub router is madly powerfull in comparison
to the spokes) is to extend area 0 across the wan links.
As for extending area 0 out onto the spoke ethernets, you can extend area 0
as far as you like, only being limited by the number of participating
routers in an area, I forget the numbers.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=9367&t=9268
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
