From: McCallum, Robert (Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 11:53:11 GMT-3
read the rfc. It has completely screwed my thinking up completely. I used ISIS as an argument to bin OSPF because of the area 0 problem. But this RFC says that you dont actually require to go via area 0 and that the router which connects both areas together isnt even an ABR.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nawaz, Ajaz [mailto:Ajaz.Nawaz@bskyb.com]
> Sent: 01 April 2003 15:51
> To: 'McCallum, Robert'; 'Ccielab' (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: OSPF areas
>
>
>
> using one ospf process per abr ?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McCallum, Robert [mailto:Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com]
> Sent: 01 April 2003 13:19
> To: 'Ccielab' (E-mail)
> Subject: OSPF areas
>
>
> Folks,
>
> Just been reading RFC3509 which clearly states that you do
> not need to have
> all ospf router areas attaching to the backbone area i.e. you
> can attach
> area 1 and area 2 direct and traffic will flow through this
> link (without
> the use of a virtual link). Has anyone out there actually
> configured this,
> or has anyone found anything on the cisco website relating to this.
>
>
>
> Robert McCallum CCIE #8757
>
>
> .
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> Information in this email is confidential and may be privileged.
> It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received
> it in error,
> please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
> You should not otherwise copy it, retransmit it or use or disclose its
> contents to anyone.
> Thank you for your co-operation.
> **********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 01 2003 - 13:35:44 GMT-3