RE: Area 0

From: Erlend Ringstad (erlend@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Aug 02 2002 - 20:16:44 GMT-3


   
At 23:10 02.08.2002, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
>What you need to consider, is whether you'll ever (through mergers,
>acquisitions, corporate growth, network design requirements, etc.) have need
>for a second area. If you may, area 0 is a smart choice for your single-area
>network.

Absolutly not! =)

A merger, corporate growth, whatever, will certainly change a lot when it comes
to your network-design.

Area 0 is not the smart choice for single-area ospf networks.

First of all, what if the other network also have a area 0? If both the network
s are
huge this might not, but probably will, give you an unstable area 0.

And think about how much easier it will be to the design a new area 0 as the re
al
backbone area? i mean, if both the networks you merge use different area number
s
and not 0? redo the core to fit the new network without the hassle! I'd love to
 try that
some time :-)

--erlend

> -- Leigh Anne
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>> Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)
>> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:28 PM
>> To: 'Asim Khan'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Subject: RE: Area 0
>>
>>
>> You absolutely have to have an area 0.
>>
>> Pags
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Asim Khan [SMTP:asimmegawatt@yahoo.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:38 PM
>> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> > Subject: Area 0
>> >
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I have a quick question, while reading Bruce Caslow I
>> > came across the following statement (page 387)
>> > "Every valid OSPF configuration must have an area 0,
>> > so if you use only single OSPF area for your entire
>> > network, it must be area 0".
>> >
>> > Whereas in Jeff Doyle volume 1 on page 517, it is
>> > written that "Single area does not have to be area 0".
>> >
>> > So which one is correct?
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> >
>> > Asim Khan
>> >



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:15 GMT-3