From: steven owen (trueccie@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 13:56:19 GMT-3
Sorry for answering so late .
The scenario is like this,
R3---A0
> > > > |
> > > > FR >
/ \
> > > > R2 R1
> > > > | |
----------
> > > > ETHERNET
> > > >
R1,R2,R3's FR ints are on area 1,R1,R2's E ints are on
area 2,R3 has an int on area 0.
First i should build a vl between R1 and R3 ,or R2 and
R3 to link area 2 with area 0.One vl is enough for
area 2?
Do i need to build a vl between R1 and R2?
Now it seems unnecesary.
Thanks.
--- Sean C <Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Chang,
>
> Who knows?? You're interpretation is just as valid
> or as crazy as mine.
> And you're right on the discontiguous stuff - no-go
> the way I'm reading the
> topology. Steven hasn't replied to multiple posts -
> puitting this post to
> bed.
>
> Don't be concerned on the way you read English - at
> least you have that
> skill!! I have a hard enough time just deciphering
> ISDN output - let alone
> trying a 2nd language. ;-)
>
> Sean
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ying chang" <ying_c@hotmail.com>
> To: <Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com>; <tron@huapi.ba.ar>;
> <trueccie@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:20 AM
> Subject: Re: ospf virtual link
>
>
> > Hi Sean,
> >
> > When it comes to interprt the requirements, I'm in
> deep trouble. Yes.
> other
> > than they both are in area 2, Steven did not say
> they are connected or
> not.
> > If they are not connected, aren't we getting
> ourselves into this
> > discontiguous area 2 stuff - two area 2s seperate
> by area 0 and area 1.
> If
> > this is the case, there's no phyical backup in the
> topology anywhere,
> until
> > we get into Harry Potter's magic stuff, I agree
> with you, we'll loose
> > connectivity if we loose a link.
> >
> > You know, you read English from left to right, I
> read Chinese from top to
> > down, seeing from the remote, kind of like you
> shaking your head and
> saying
> > "no, no, no..." and I'm noding my head saying
> "yes, yes, yes...", can this
> > be why I mistakenly connect put two links
> together?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chang
> >
> >
> > >From: "Sean C" <Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com>
> > >To: "ying chang" <ying_c@hotmail.com>,
> <tron@huapi.ba.ar>,
> > ><trueccie@yahoo.com>
> > >CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >Subject: Re: ospf virtual link
> > >Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 09:25:22 -0400
> > >
> > >Hi Chang,
> > >
> > >The way I was reading Steven's topology, I didn't
> see any link between r2
> > >and r3 besides the FR connection on Area 1.
> > >"r1,r2,r3 connected by FR,all the interfaces on
> FR are on area 1"
> > >
> > >Your map has a Eth link between R2 and R3 - I
> read the description as an
> > >Eth
> > >link between R2 and R1.
> > >"r1 and r2 have an ethernet int each, which is on
> area 2, r3 have an int
> on
> > >area 0."
> > >
> > >If your interpretation of Steven's description is
> correct, then yes, the
> > >virtual-link will work. If the only link to R3
> is by the frame, and R3's
> > >frame fails - then they are out of luck.
> > >
> > >Am I reading this incorrectly?
> > >Sean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "ying chang" <ying_c@hotmail.com>
> > >To: <tron@huapi.ba.ar>; <trueccie@yahoo.com>
> > >Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:16 AM
> > >Subject: Re: ospf virtual link
> > >
> > >
> > > > If I understand Steven's topology correctly, I
> cannot see why not. The
> > >way
> > >I
> > > > see his topology is like below:
> > > >
> > > > R1
> > > > / \
> > > > A1 A1
> > > > / \
> > > > R2 R3---A0
> > > > | |
> > > > |--A2----|
> > > >
> > > > A1 is in the Frame Relay cloud, A2 and A0 are
> in LAN interfaces, if
> > >R1-R3
> > >FR
> > > > link fails, he wants be able to reach A0 via
> R1-R2-R3 link. If this is
> > >the
> > > > case, I see it's a perfect case for virtual
> link between R1 and R3
> just
> > >by
> > > > cutting the link betwwen R1-R3 link:
> > > >
> > > > R2:
> > > >
> > > > router ospf 100
> > > > ...
> > > > area 2 virtual-link R3's RID
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > R3:
> > > >
> > > > router ospf 100
> > > > ...
> > > > area 2 virtual-link R2's RID
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Since the error message is referring to RID
> mismatch, I would use
> "show
> > >ip
> > > > ospf" to find both R2 and R3's RID. I'm
> guessing he probably peering
> R1
> > >and
> > > > R3 instead of R2 and R3, but I'm not sure.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, if you want to get fancy, you can
> use A1 to backup A2 as
> well.
> > > > i.e. A2 is the primary route for R2 to reach
> A0, but if A2 fails, R2
> > >should
> > > > be able to use A1 to reach A0.
> > > >
> > > > Chang
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar>
> > > > >Reply-To: Carlos G Mendioroz
> <tron@huapi.ba.ar>
> > > > >To: steven owen <trueccie@yahoo.com>
> > > > >CC: Groupstudy ccielab list
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > >Subject: Re: ospf virtual link
> > > > >Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 07:52:00 -0300
> > > > >
> > > > >Steven,
> > > > >virtual links are always area 0.
> > > > >They are use to make up for the need of area
> 0 being THE
> > > > >connecting area (aka backbone) and in one
> piece.
> > > > >Tipical uses have one end in real area 0, and
> the other in
> > > > >a remote (i.e. non directly connected) area,
> but it also
> > > > >can be used to reattach a disconnected area 0
> sector
> > > > >(thus both ends lying in area 0).
> > > > >
> > > > >Now, answering you question, no, you can not.
> > > > >(Also you need not, since it is ok for having
> more than
> > > > >one area X at one time.)
> > > > >What you do need is having area 2 directly
> connected to
> > > > >area 0, and there you can (should) use one or
> two
> > > > >VLs to go via area 1.
> > > > >
> > > > >steven owen wrote:
> > > > > >
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:51 GMT-3