HI Jenny, Is it safe to say that your problem is that when your non backbone area becomes partitioned, you lose reachability to one side of the partition? When you use large summarizes to describe entire areas and have multiple entry points into those areas themselves, this is a normal occurrence. If this is the problem, the solution likely involves the use of less specific summaries per ABR, and/or greater L2 resiliency to protect against partitions. If that's not the problem, can you indicate where I've misread the problem description?
Thanks Pete At 09:05 PM 4/2/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Hi all, > >This is actually a real-life scenario, but I think it throws up some >interesting points about OSPF that some people may not have come across. >And it has a couple of bits that I don't understand. Please excuse the >verbosity. > >Currently, (part of) this particular network is as described below. It >normally works fine, but during certain types of failures, connectivity >breaks although there is still a physical path. I am contemplating what >the best way to fix it would be, and would be interested in comments. > >Set-up - I don't think my ascii art is up to this but I'll give it a go if >the description isn't clear enough: > >Two ABRs (Rtr1 and Rtr2), running IOS 12.1, connected to each other by a >direct ethernet cable in area 0, and also by several local ethernet >networks in area 2.1.0.0. The details of the local ethernets can probably >remain a fluffy cloud, but note that failure of a single component can >potentially cause all area 2.1.0.0 neighbour connectivity between Rtr1 and >Rtr2 to be lost, although the local ethernets may remain up on one or both >routers. > >Both routers have a connection back to the core of the network (on Rtr2 it >is dialup, so not usually active), which is in area 0. Both routers have >WAN links to several sites (not dual-homed - each site has a link to only >one ABR), in area 2.1.0.0. Rtr2 may also have WAN links to several sites >in area 2.2.0.0, but that's probably not too relevant. > >Both ABRs summarise the networks in area 2.1.0.0 to a single summary >network (Rtr2 summarises the networks in 2.2.0.0, if any, to another >summary network). > >This usually works fine - traffic from the core to sites connected to Rtr2 >(in area 2.1.0.0) travels from Rtr1 to Rtr2 across the local ethernets >(area 2.1.0.0), and in reverse from Rtr2 to Rtr1 across the Area 0 >ethernet. This, while perhaps not ideal, is as expected, and works well >under normal circumstances. (If you're not sure why this is expected, >read up on hot potato routing policy - Howard gave a good description in >the context of stub areas in >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/cisco/200001/msg01579.html) > >The problem happens if the area 2.1.0.0 neighbour connections between Rtr1 >and Rtr2 are lost. Even though there is still an area 0 link between >them, area 2.1.0.0 sites connected to rtr2 lose connectivity to the core. >Area 2.2.0.0 sites are OK (this is good - I'd be really confused if they >lost it too). >Despite Doyle claiming that partitioned non-backbone areas are not a >problem (he does, on page 462 of Routing TCP/IP Vol 1), it seems they can >be. As far as I can see, it's because when summarising the 2.1.0.0 >networks, Rtr1 also installs a route to null0 for the summary route - >which overrides the summary route that Rtr2 generates (and which would >otherwise cover the 'lost' sites). > >I can see a couple of possibilities for fixing this... >1) Install a second direct ethernet cable between Rtr1 and Rtr2, in area >2.1.0.0. This may not be particularly elegant, but it should be >comparatively easy to do and effective (there are plenty of spare ethernet >ports). It also has the useful side-effect of getting the through traffic >off the local ethernets. > >2) Use the "no discard-route internal" command - this doesn't appear to be >documented but is mentioned at >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/3.html#12.0 >I haven't tested it, but I think it should prevent the null0 route from >being installed by Rtr1, so my theory is that then the summary generated >by Rtr2 should come into play. This, of course, goes against all Cisco >recommendations, which say that having the null0 route is A Good Thing to >prevent routing loops. > >3) Muck about with the arrangement of switches within the internal >networks. I think this will cause more trouble than it's worth, since any >rearrangement has to be duplicated at twenty sites. In theory at least, >the whole network may be redesigned from scratch over the next year or so, >so a quick and dirty fix isn't necessarily a problem. > >BUT... I am also not positive that my understanding of what is happening >and why is correct, because the support guys have told me that this >problem has been around since we were running IOS 11.2 on the ABRs (not >that long ago, believe it or not), and I'm pretty sure that no route to >null0 was being generated then (summarisation was the same). >So can anyone explain to me why connectivity would fail even if no null0 >route was being generated? What am I missing? >And does anyone feel like commenting on the options for fixing it? > >JMcL Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=40484&t=40269 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
