Hello! I think I found the Solution for the wrxkrmpf OSPF problem. I configured tunnel interfaces at R1, R2 and R4 and bound the interfaces to OSPF area 2. I configured no virtual link. Now only R1 and R2 are in Area 0. Another advantage is the backup for Area 2. In the original setup I had the problem that after a link-down of FR R2-R4 Area 2 is no more reachable. When you want to configure a virtual link between R4 and R1 you will have the problem that the ISDN link is up the whole time.
Any comments? Mathias -----Urspr|ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jan Gunnik Hope [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Samstag, 25. Mai 2002 23:12 An: Spoerr, Mathias Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nigel Taylor; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: SV: OSPF problem - 2nd try Hello Mathias ! In my opinion these are the possible (elegant :-) solutions, in preferred order : 1. Use "area 0 range 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 not-advertise" on routers R1/R2/R4, virtual link R2/R4. You need it on R4 as well, because as you said yourself, R4 becomes member of area 0 when you add the virtual link. This removes 10.x.x.x from R3 and R5, and they are both connected thru F/R, in different areas. 2. Use "area area-id filter-list prefix prefix-list-name out" with prefix-list-name filtering net 10.0.0.0. Use it on R1/R2/R4, virtual link R2/R4 This command was introduced in 12.0(15)S, but unfortunately does not seem to be part of the main IOS train yet. I haven't been able to test this one, but it looks "dead-on". We still see 10.x.x.x in R4 though, because of the virtual link. 3. Use a tunnel between r2/r4, totally stub areas 1 and 2. Tunnel endpoints in area 2. This is really a lab-only solution, as Nigel also remarked. But it works, and does not show the 10.x.x.x on R4... I clearly prefer #1, because I interpret your requirement : "The exercise is that the 10.x network must not be advertised into the Frame Relay network." to mean that R3 and R5 should not see 10.x.x.x. R4 sees it as soon as we configure a virtual-link or a tunnel, because we then make R4 area 0 member. If you were to use no tunnels and have different OSPF processes, you could use one process per area, and do redistribution between them. That would make the filtering really easy, but you would essentially change your OSPF-execise to a redistribution exercise :-) My two cents... Jan Gunnik Hope CCIE # 8221 -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Pe vegne av Nigel Taylor Sendt: 25. mai 2002 15:42 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopi: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Spoerr, Mathias Emne: Re: OSPF problem - 2nd try MAthais, I'm not sure if the ASCII art made the journey. but based on what I believe you're trying to accomplish see Inline... Note: Questions like this you should post to the main ist( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). You'll get a better response. FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
