Hi;
The following scenario
[RouteA area0][area0 RouterB area1]<--[area1
RouterC area4]
|
|
|
|
|__Virtual link___|
Does this topology is valid in OSPF?
I belive that the configuration has topo
Configuration topology is okay. In this case you have area 1 as a transit
area.
It should work fine without any authentication.
The thing to know, however, is that the configuration command is a bit
misleading:
(config-router)#area n virtual-link partner-router-id
Where n is, in this case 1.
The r
Hi;
Due to the mail system incompatiable, the message was truncated,
I will provide more information to let you guys have more information.
Area 0 is formed by Router A and Router B
Area 1 is formed by Router B and Router C
Area 4 is formed by Router C only.
Router C set up a virtual link wi
I don't know what you mean by OSPF area rule, nor by the virtual link rule,
but:
In order to route from one of "not-backbone OSPF area" to another
"not-backbone OSPF area", you need to cross the backbone area (area 0). For
this reason, if one has two chained areas that do not "share" the backbone
ort,
Authentication stops someone from plugging in a router within your
Authenticated Area & picking up LSA info.
All the best !!!
Phil
- Original Message -
From: Vincent Chong
To:
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 3:53 AM
Subject: OSPF virtual link Question [7:3154]
> Hi;
>
&g
Hi;
Thank you.
Vincent Chong
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3173&t=3154
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosur
then there is no
reason to fix it, unless you are a consultant and the customer is willing to
pay for it.
Ejay Hire
-Original Message-
From: Vincent Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 3:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OSPF virtual link Question [7:3154]
7 matches
Mail list logo
