From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 19:10:19 GMT-3
At 6:33 PM -0300 5/10/02, Carlos G Mendioroz wrote:
>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.
No, virtual links are an exception (or maybe a blurry area is a
better term), since the original purpose was to have one end in a
non-backbone area that did not have physical connectivity to area
0.0.0.0. Logical connectivity is achieved by running the virtual
link through a second nonzero area, which must have transit
capability.
While this is the original intention -- that's from the mouth of John
Moy -- the more common use these days indeed has both ends in area
0.0.0.0, but the link passes through a nonzero transit area with two
connections to area 0.0.0.0.
>
>Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
-- "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