From: SUBODH MUNZANI (smunzani@comcast.net)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 11:06:48 GMT-3
Please read the original post. The reason behind single non-zero area
was to build a network so it can merge with core area 0 later. The link
between this network and core is not ordered that's the reason we have
to work with such configuration.
Even for a smaller network I would prefer OSPF over EIGRP because it's
based on standards. With other protocols, you can't add any non-cisco
device to the network.
Sam Munzani
CCIE # 6479
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry <phase90@comcast.net>
Date: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: Can you have OSPF without area 0 at all?
> This thread, it seems to me is degenerating , maybe deprecating a
> betterword, into a design issue.
>
> If not using an area 0, or the network is not big enough to
> require more
> than 1 area, I would think OSPF would not be the routing protocol
> of choice,
> no?
>
>
> Jerry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <tsiartas@ameritech.net>
> To: 'Joe' <groupstudy@comcast.net>; 'Mark Miller'
> <markmiller@alltel.net>;'Sam Munzani' <sam@munzani.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>Cc: <cciesecurity@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 5:10 PM
> Subject: RE: Can you have OSPF without area 0 at all?
>
>
> > As far as I know
> > Ospf works with out are 0.
> > However ABRs can only be between are 0 and another area. There
> is no
> > workaround to that other than the virtual-links.
> > So basically you are limiting your design for summarization. And
> this is
> > really the main disadvantage of ospf that can be a problem when
> merging> companies, IS-IS could be an alternative as you can
> design as many tiers
> > as you like with no area 0 requirement.
> >
> > t
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Joe
> > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 1:35 PM
> > To: 'Mark Miller'; 'Sam Munzani'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Cc: cciesecurity@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: Can you have OSPF without area 0 at all?
> >
> > Please send us the link you refer to. I have to say that this
> is simply
> > not true. You will ONLY send routes from your area, whatever it
> may be,
> > into area 0, the backbone, so you can't just arbitrarily
> designate any
> > area as the backbone. It MUST be area 0.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Mark Miller
> > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 6:15 PM
> > To: Sam Munzani; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Cc: cciesecurity@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Can you have OSPF without area 0 at all?
> >
> >
> > The routing process in ospf has no concept that "area 0" is the
> backbone> area. You can make it any number you want. I remember
> reading> something on this. I'll try to dig it up and send you a
> link.>
> > Mark Miller
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sam Munzani" <sam@munzani.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Cc: <cciesecurity@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:56 PM
> > Subject: Can you have OSPF without area 0 at all?
> >
> >
> > > Team,
> > >
> > > I came across an interesting finding. I want to take everybody's
> > > opinion
> > on this before putting anything in production. We are building
> an OSPF
> > network that will eventually merge with company's main OSPF backbone
> > network. The core group has assigned us ospf area number 555.
> > >
> > > When I configure all my routers with OSPF area 555(with no
> area 0 at
> > > all),
> > it seems to be building up routing table. I always thought OSPF
> needs> area 0 to function. Will this work of we add a non cisco
> device with
> > area 555 configuration?
> > >
> > > What is the catch 22 in this configuration? I have started reading
> > > OSPF
> > RFC to figure out all technical details.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sam Munzani
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:27 GMT-3