From: Jeremy (jeremy19@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 10:38:34 GMT-3
First time post (excuse me jumping in mid stream). Have we tried a virtual
link?
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/2.html#8.2
Virtual links are used for two purposes:
a.. Linking an area that does not have a physical connection to the
backbone.
b.. Patching the backbone in case discontinuity of area 0 occurs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martyniak, James" <martynij@uphs.upenn.edu>
To: "'Scott Hoover'" <scott.hoover@powerupnetworks.com>; "CCIELAB (E-mail)"
<CCIELAB@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: fatkid 502
> To tell you the truth I did not even consider a GRE solution. I thought
> about it after the fact. From my perspective a tunneled solution would be
> more efficient but, I saw nothing stated about efficiency in the lab.
>
> I got to thinking though, which solution actually uses more resources?
My
> guess would be 2 ospf processes.
>
> Jimmy Martyniak
> Network Engineer
> University of Pennsylvania Health System
> (215)662-6243
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hoover [mailto:scott.hoover@powerupnetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 11:01 AM
> To: 'Martyniak, James'; CCIELAB (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: fatkid 502
>
>
>
> I hate to egg this on but I can't resist. I have not seen this lab, but
it
> seems to me the most likely answer (from both a theory and actual CCIE lab
> standpoint) would be to use the virtual-link. I would think that you
would
> have to defend your answer if you would approach this from any other
> standpoint. Comments?
>
> Scott J. Hoover
> Network Engineer
> PowerUp Networks
> scott.hoover@powerupnetworks.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martyniak, James [ mailto:martynij@uphs.upenn.edu
> <mailto:martynij@uphs.upenn.edu> ]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:42 AM
> To: CCIELAB (E-mail)
> Subject: fatkid 502
>
>
> I initially solved the discontinuous areas via, running 2 ospf processes
on
> R2 and redistributing between themselves. The final solution used a GRE
> tunnel to get area 2 to the backbone.
>
> Which would be more acceptable? I could spark up a debate about which is
> more efficient? 2 ospf proc.(memory intensive) or a GRE tunnel(cpu time).
>
> Jimmy Martyniak
> Network Engineer
> University of Pennsylvania Health System
> (215)662-6243
> **Please read: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> <http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html>
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:15 GMT-3