I don't recall the entire context of this particular discussion, but there is an error in the commentary below that I wanted to correct.
>Unfortunately, the RFC only addresses virtual links as a means to repair > a partitioned backbone. It does not address providing bacbone > connectivity to a non-backbone area. Nor does the RFC discuss demand circuits, which, > of course, is a Cisco implementation. So there may very well be a > "gottcha" in there that simply isn't addressed in the "official" OSPF documentation. RFC 1753 does indeed address OSPF demand circuits. They are not a "Cisco implimentation" A virtual link is a kind of demand circuit, and is described in RFC 1753 as well. Us router jocks sometimes can forget that the folks who designed the standards put a lot of thought into the process. If something wasn't covered, or something came up subsequent to the original standard, it tends to get addressed later. Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=40720&t=34379 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
