From: Nick Shah (nshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jul 09 2002 - 07:26:52 GMT-3
Harish
Virtual link addresses disjointed area 0, or connectivity to area 0
(backbone).
Virtual link doesnt address redundancy. However, If you wish to have
redundancy you could run a tunnel or virtual link between R2 and R1.
Thoughts.. ... (I think Howard has mentioned in one of his earlier posts
what can be a virtual link application)
rgds
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: Harish DV/peakxv <harish.dv@peakxv.net>
To: Howard C. Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: OSPF Virtual Link across Non-OSPF area?
> Howard,
>
> I ran into this scenario while testing virtual links.
>
>
> |
> |area 3
> |
> R1----area2------R2
> | |
> | |
> | area 1 |
> ---------------------------
> |
> |
> |
> R3
> |
> | area 0
> |
> R4
>
> R1,R2 and R3's area 1 is a frame cloud with R3's serial int as point to
> multipoint
> R1 and R2 are also connected via area 2 on ethernet
> R2 also has another interface in area 3
> R3 has another interface in area 0 connecting to R4
>
> I know that we need virtual links between R1 -R3 and R2 - R3
> My question is don't we need another virtual link from R2 ro R1 ?. If not,
> what will happen if the R2's serial link connecting to frame cloud fails
> and area 3 gets isolated?. or are there any other methods to achieve the
> same connectivity?.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Harish
>
>
>
>
>
> "Howard C.
> Berkowitz" To:
Sam.MicroGate@usa.telekom.de, hcb@gettcomm.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> <hcb@gettcomm.com cc:
> > Subject: RE: OSPF Virtual
Link across Non-OSPF area?
> Sent by:
> nobody@groupstudy
> .com
>
>
> 05/10/2002 01:14
> PM
> Please respond to
> "Howard C.
> Berkowitz"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:23 GMT-3