Hi everybody, I have posted this email a week ago , but I did not get a reply to it, so I am trying again. Hopefully someone would be able to help me.
Could someone please explain to me why some OSPF summary routes are more expensive than other routes (even if the cheaper route is accessed via the more expensive route)? To illustrate my point, picture the following scenario: RouterA is connected to RouterB via network 1. Network 1 has a cost of 1. RouterB is connected to RouterC via network 2. Network 2 has a cost of 4. RouterC is connected to RouterD via network3. Network 3 has a cost of 16. Network 4 (which has a cost of 64) is only connected to RouterD. Network 1 is in OSPF area 1 (RouterA is an internal router and RouterB is the ABR for area 1) Network 2 is the only network in backbone area (area 0). Network 3 and network 4 is in area 2 (RouterD is an internal router and RouterC is the ABR for area 2) If you now perform a "show ip route" on RouterA, the cost to network 3 is 149 and the cost to network 4 is 85 !!! Even though network 4 is accessed via network 3, it is less expensive than network 3. The only rational explanation that I can find for this is that the ABR for Area2 adds an extra cost-factor for network 3 when it advertised it to other areas (but I cannot figure out why???). And if this is the case, why does it not add on an extra cost-factor for network 4 as well??? [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30297&t=30297 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
