At 11:59 AM 4/4/02, Chuck wrote: >that was going to be my guess as well. I've done a number of lab experiments >with similar themes, and have in my own mind at least, confirmed what is >stated in the RFC - that the only serious routing issue with partitioned >non-backbone areas results from overlapping
She does seem to have overlapping summarization, if that makes sense. She said: The area range statements on Rtr2 are... [various area 0 range statements snipped] area 2.1.0.0 range 2.0.0.0 255.128.0.0 area 2.2.0.0 range 2.128.0.0 255.224.0.0 On Rtr1 the statements are... [same area 0 range statements snipped] area 2.1.0.0 range 2.0.0.0 255.128.0.0 If you look at her ASCII art e-mail, you'll see that the WAN links were not assigned contiguously unless I'm missing something. Rt1 has 2.101.0.0/16 and 2.109.0.0/16. Rtr 2 has 2.120.0.0/16, 2.104.0.0/16, and 2.130.0.0/16 It's probably too late now, but perhaps if all the WAN links connected to Rtr 1 had been summarizable into a group that was distinct from the WAN links connected to Rtr 2, she wouldn't have the problem?? (Of course, she has that area 2.2.0.0 to deal with too, but perhaps it could be something different entirely....) But I don't think she's looking for a redesign. She's looking for a quick fix for now. What did you guys think of the idea of adding another direct connection between the two switches and putting it in area 2.1.0.0? Priscilla >Chuck > >""Peter van Oene"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > 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 ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=40502&t=40269 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
