From: Peter van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Mar 20 2002 - 14:21:51 GMT-3
Hi Gregg,
I was thinking more about real life than the lab I suppose. I tend to do
that from time to time :) I think that if you are building an OSPF
network, the hierarchy should be pretty clear in your mind such that you
shouldn't forget that you already have a backbone. Further, not putting
the loops in area 0 might make the LSDB harder to manage as it will
grow. Might lose points for making a box an ABR when it wasn't supposed to
be. I do see your side though, just playing a little devils advocate I
suppose :)
Pete
At 09:10 AM 3/20/2002 -0800, Gregg Malcolm wrote:
>Peter,
>
>My reasoning is as follows. Please remember that this applies to a lab
>scenario and not the *real* world :
>
>Lets assume that you are asked to do the following :
>
>1. Config loop on R1 and place into area 0
>2. Connect R1 to R2 and place this connection in area 1
>3. Connect R2 to R3 and place this connection into area 2 (virtual link for
>area 1)
>! All works well for me up to this point
>4. Connect R3 to R4 and place this connection in area 0
>
>When step 4 is completed there is a dis-contiguous area 0. I've personally
>tried it several times this a.m. Every time I add the connection between R3
>and R4 in this hypothetical example, I lose the route to the loop on R1 on
>the R3 router. I assume this is because the ospf databases on R1/R2 differ
>from R3/R4 because there are 2 sets of area 0's.
>
>Imagine that you are taking a well known test and are asked to do step 4
>several pages after completing step 1. In the heat of the battle, it would
>be easy to forget that an area 0 had already been configured. It could also
>be argued that if authentication was done on area 0 (might be likely), that
>if you forgot to add auth under the interface, you could lose points there.
>I know that a loop can't have neighbors, but when in doubt, I opt for the
>safest bet.
>
>My point is, whenever I'm given a preference regarding anything on a test,
>I'll try to do what's safest and then what's easier in that order. Seems to
>me, if given a choice, placing loops on a non zero area are a good idea when
>practical and possible.
>
>Is there a downside of not using non zero area's on loops ? Other than if
>you are not connected to area 0 and must use virtual links ?
>
>Gregg
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter van Oene" <pvo@usermail.com>
>To: "Gregg Malcolm" <greggm@sbcglobal.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:27 AM
>Subject: Re: OSPF and Loopback Intfs????
>
>
> > What is the downside of using area 0 on loops?
> >
> > At 04:59 PM 3/19/2002 -0800, Gregg Malcolm wrote:
> > >Area 51 always works well for me :) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Doesn't
> > >really matter but by all means try not to use area 0 on loops.
> > >
> > >Gregg
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Don Banyong" <don_study@hotmail.com>
> > >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:25 PM
> > >Subject: OSPF and Loopback Intfs????
> > >
> > >
> > > > Is there any specific OSPF area that is deemed appropriate for putting
> > > > loopback interfaces into?
> > > > If there is, why?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:14 GMT-3