Thanks for the input. We did the upgrade this weekend and all went well.
Bob
> I should have limited that to one big area vs one big area 0. I'm all for
> single areas when they suit, but I agree that using a non zero area can
have
> some benefits.
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 8/17/2001 at 10:24 AM Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
> >>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=16534&t=16341
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
