RE: rare OSPF question [7:69819]
Do you use virtual links for connecting the two backbone area's? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=69864&t=69819 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rare OSPF question [7:69819]
A common use is to join 2 non connected segments of the same area. A famous interview question will go something like, "If I needed to have a discontiguous area zero, could I do it and if so how?" http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/ospfdb7.html Brian - Original Message - From: "Jvrg Buesink" To: Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 4:41 AM Subject: RE: rare OSPF question [7:69819] > Do you use virtual links for connecting the two backbone area's? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=69880&t=69819 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: rare OSPF question [7:69819]
Hello Curious, To answer your questions: 1. router C is ABR although no traffic can pass between area A and B through C unless you have some virtual links between router C and A or B. 2. This won't cause any non-stable ospf database 3. There is no way for communication between two non-backbone areas except through backbone area. 4. Use virtual links. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks Sourabh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=69891&t=69819 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: rare OSPF question [7:69819]
I can't seem to find the original message with the other questions, but let me comment on the discontiguous area 0.0.0.0 problem. There's an "inside the box" solution using OSPF facilities, and what may be a more general "outside the box" solution. Using a virtual link assumes that the discontiguous parts of area 0.0.0.0 can at least reach a common router in a nonzero area. More often than not, this will involve two routers. But what if area 0.0.0.0 is discontiguous because the path between backbone routers has to go through a non-OSPF routing domain, and there's no common non-backbone area through which you can route a virtual link? I've fixed this problem (e.g., two parts of OSPF area 0.0.0.0 separated by EIGRP) with a tunnel through the non-OSPF backbone, the subnet associated with the tunnel being made part of area 0.0.0.0. It happened that I used GRE, but other tunneling protocols should work. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=69897&t=69819 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: rare OSPF question [7:69819]
I can't seem to find the original message with the other questions, but let me comment on the discontiguous area 0.0.0.0 problem. There's an "inside the box" solution using OSPF facilities, and what may be a more general "outside the box" solution. Using a virtual link assumes that the discontiguous parts of area 0.0.0.0 can at least reach a common router in a nonzero area. More often than not, this will involve two routers. But what if area 0.0.0.0 is discontiguous because the path between backbone routers has to go through a non-OSPF routing domain, and there's no common non-backbone area through which you can route a virtual link? I've fixed this problem (e.g., two parts of OSPF area 0.0.0.0 separated by EIGRP) with a tunnel through the non-OSPF backbone, the subnet associated with the tunnel being made part of area 0.0.0.0. It happened that I used GRE, but other tunneling protocols should work. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=69925&t=69819 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
