From: MADMAN (dave@interprise.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 19:29:49 GMT-3
Yes it is valid no doubt but I think Persio is correct in stating this
should not be used as a permenant solution but rather a backup to
prevent segmenting area 0 in the case of a failure. Secondary address
are valid but I don't think many people would recommend designing a
network using them accept to get around tempory issues, i.e.
readdressing.
Dave
Robert Massiache wrote:
>
> Yes it is very much a valid solution...refer "OSPF Design Guide" by Sam
> Halabi. He detailed this problem.
>
> thanks
>
> >From: "Persio Pucci" <persiopucci@uol.com.br>
> >Reply-To: "Persio Pucci" <persiopucci@uol.com.br>
> >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: Re: Discontiguous OSPF area 0 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:25:32
> >-0200
> >
> >Andy,
> >
> >that's acceptable, but shall not be considered as a permanent solution. You
> >can use a virtual link to connect a discontiguous area 0 to make it show
> >like it is one continuous area. This is mostly used as a backup to prevent
> >an area 0 to be splitted during a failure...
> >
> >Persio
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <ANDF@nnpi.com>
> >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:43 PM
> >Subject: Discontiguous OSPF area 0
> >
> >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > The chapter 32 lab in IP Expert version 3.0, has two area 0s that are
> > > separated by another area. The solution connects the area 0s through a
> > > virtual link. Is this a valid configuration? I was under the impression
> >that
> > > the OSPF area 0 cannot be discontiguous. Any comments?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Andy Fernandes
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
-- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:23:07 GMT-3