From: Frank Jimenez (franjime@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Apr 30 2001 - 19:02:39 GMT-3
Upon further review....
Erick/Chuck - I think you're correct... In fact, a review of the RFC implies t
hat you can have OSPF without an area defined at all. And as Chuck pointed out
to me, there's not even an 'Area' field in the LSA.
*SIGH* - see what happens when I try to apply logic to a network question? :-)
What I really want to know now is if you can have a non-contiguous area other t
han Area 0....
Frank Jimenez, CCIE #5738
franjime@cisco.com
At 02:56 PM 04/30/2001 -0700, Erick B. wrote:
>I beg to differ. If you have a multi-area OSPF network
>then area 0.0.0.0 is required. If you have a network
>and all routers are in the same area then you could
>put everything in area 51 and have no area 0.
>
>This works. I have done it with IOS. It is explained
>this way in the OSPF class I went to awhile back...
>and in some books I've read in the past but can't
>recall offhand.
>
>--- Frank Jimenez <franjime@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Niall,
>> No, this is correct. Every OSPF network must
>> have a backbone area, and 0.0.0.0 is reserved for
>> the backbone. Therefore, if you have an OSPF
>> network with only one area, this single area must be
>> the backbone, and must therefore be identified as
>> Area 0.
>>
>> Frank Jimenez, CCIE #5738
>> Systems Engineer
>> Cisco Systems, Inc.
>> franjime@cisco.com
>>
>>
>> At 10:03 PM 04/30/2001 +0100, Niall El-Assaad wrote:
>> >In the book on this page it says "Every valid OSPF
>> configuration must have
>> >an area 0, so if you use only a single OSPF area
>> for your entire network it
>> >must be area 0".
>> >
>> >Surely this isn't right. If you have only one area
>> it doesn't matter what it
>> >is? Does it?
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:02 GMT-3