From: Carlos G Mendioroz (tron@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 18:33:03 GMT-3
Howard,
isn't it "virtual links ARE always area 0" ?
Areas define links aggregation, not routers, right ?
So always both ends of a link are in the same area.
For virtual links, this must be area 0.
(and I think that yes, you could create a new area
just for the tunnel, and then run a VL on top of
it, but I would not do that unless required just for the
sake of a lab...)
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
> At 4:02 PM -0400 5/10/02, Sam.MicroGate@usa.telekom.de wrote:
> >Howard,
> >
> >If the solution require a Virtual link, can I add both ends of the tunnel to
> >a new area 2.2.2.2, then create a virtual link across this area?
> >
> >Sam
> >
>
> One end of a virtual link, by definition, MUST be in area 0.0.0.0;
> both ends MAY be.
>
> If R1 and R3 were both in area 0.0.0.0, you could reconstitute it
> with a virtual link through R2 in a nonzero area. It just doesn't
> seem to be a virtual link application.
>
> You might want to try Scenarios S0001-S0004, which are intended to be
> run in sequence (building on one another), in the Gettlabs FTP server
> at 12.107.238.3 (login anonymous, password your email address). Look
> in the beta scenario directory. I'm still writing parts 5 and 6, but
> they have a disgusting number of interacting virtual links, tunnels,
> etc.
> --
> "What Problem are you trying to solve?"
> ***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not
> directly to me***
> *****************************************************************************
***
> Howard C. Berkowitz hcb@gettcomm.com
> Chief Technology Officer, GettLab/Gett Communications http://www.gettlabs.com
> Technical Director, CertificationZone.com http://www.certificationzone.com
> "retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:54 GMT-3