Ran across some text in Doyle's V1 that confirms JMcL's comment below (page 462, Partioned Areas section).
So, the next question for the group is the following: OSPF doesn't track the area information once the routing information gets injected into the backbone. Suppose you have a network with N different physical locations and each will be configured as sub-area. Each sub-area connects to the backbone via it's own ABR. Is there any reason to use different area numbers in this situation? >From an Ops perspective (say where you have tools to go out and touch the configs on the ABR and sub-area routers), using the same area number will simplify the configs and tool logic. So, is there some benefit to actually use different sub-area IDs? Thanks > bergenpeak wrote: > > > > Suppose I have two ABRs that are supporting the same sub-area. > > The ABRs are not directly connected, but can reach each other > > through links inside the sub-area. > > > > Suppose a link fails causing the two ABRs to not have > > connectivity > > through the sub-area. The sub-area is therefore partitioned. > > > > Suppose the ABRs are not doing route summarization. > > > > Will this cause a problem from the backbone perspective? > > > > Will this cause a problem for traffic which needs to flow from > > one side of the sub-area to the other part of the sub-area? > > > > Thanks > > > > > > I don't believe it will cause any problems. I'm not going to look it up > right now, but I'm sure I've researched this one before. As long as there > is no summarisation (or no overlapping summarisation), the two partitions > are simply treated as two sub-areas. > > JMcL Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51199&t=51199 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
