>I'm not sure where you got the idea that one big area zero is a bad thing?
Me, as one example.
But let me make an important distinction, borrowing from George Orwell
Four legs good One big area not necessarily bad
Two legs bad One big area zero bad
If you have a moderate number of routers without any obvious
hierarchy, a single area can make perfectly good sense. I do
recommend, however, numbering that area ANYTHING but 0.0.0.0.
You don't need your first area to be 0.0.0.0. But if later company
growth, mergers/acquisitions/divestitures, etc., mean that hierarchy
becomes appropriate, your second area MUST be 0.0.0.0, and the third,
etc., are nonzero.
If you start by numbering all the routers in the One Big Area in
0.0.0.0, that means that you will need to renumber the network
statements when you grow. Making the One Big Area 0.0.0.1 won't hurt
anything and will make things much more flexible with respect to
future requirements.
Incidentally, in a multivendor conversion like this, be sure to
specify area numbers and router IDs explicitly and in four-octet
format -- in other words, area 0.0.0.1, not area 1. Not all vendors
interpret area numbers in the same way -- Bay RS, in some versions,
would convert "area 1" to "area 1.0.0.0." 3Com's default router ID,
on some platforms, was derived through some strange algorithm based
on part of an interface MAC address.
See other comments inline.
>
>In this case, I would highly recommend it. This is a pretty small network
>and I really don't see the benefit of adding hierarchy to it from a
>multi-area perspective. Keep in mind that the more you segment an OSPF area
>into sub-areas, the more link state qualities you forego. I'd go with your
>boss on this one.
>
>Pete
>
>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
>On 8/17/2001 at 12:17 AM Bob Timmons wrote:
>
>>Greetings all,
>>
>>We're converting our 3Com router world to Cisco soon and I have a question
>>regarding the OSPF design. I'm including a link to a JPG in case anyone
>>wants to add their 2 cents. You can see it at:
>>
>>http://members.tripod.com/~bobtimmons/network-1.jpg
>>
>>This is a somewhat simplistic view of our network and the IP's aren't real,
>>but I'm hoping it makes sense regardless. We currently have a full T1 to a
>>frame cloud and our other 2 main buildings are off of that cloud as well,
>>one is 1M, the other is the balance of the T. Both of the remote sites are
>>pointing to the 1 PVC at our main site. My question is, would this OSPF
>>network work? I know the OBAZ, (One Big Area Zero - Wow! My first
>>acronym! - Hey Howard, feel free to use that one), is frowned upon, but
>>that's how my boss wants it, because that's how it is now. Not good logic,
>>but I have to follow orders sometimes.
>>
>>A note: We have other sites off of the main site (Site 1) in another Frame
>>Cloud. It shouldn't affect what we're doing here, though.
>>
>>Also, I didn't include the IPX networks on the Ethernet ports. That's not
>>a
>>real issue right now.
>>
>>Specifically, I'm unsure about using the Loopbacks. We're going to use
>>them
>>for our DLSW (not pictured) links. What I'm unsure about is, can I use
>>these addresses, as given, with their masks, and distribute them via OSPF
>>and have it work?
Yes, you can distribute loopbacks just fine.
> >
>>If I'm completely off here, please feel free to let me know.
>>
>>I'm including the proposed configs (snipped)
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>
> >Site1 -
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16376&t=16341
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
