From: Jason Gardiner (gardiner@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Sep 09 2001 - 13:01:31 GMT-3
Fatkid 502 explicitly states that virtual links cannot be used.
Thanks,
Jason Gardiner
Supervisor, Engineering Services
Sprint E|Solutions
"You can swim all day in the Sea of Knowledge and
still come out completely dry. Most people do."
- Norton Juster
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Jeremy wrote:
> 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
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:16 GMT-3