From: McCallum, Robert (Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 10:05:49 GMT-3
hmmmm, i think you may have misunderstood. Whilst it is not good design practice to have partitioned areas it WILL work perfectly ok. You can have 40 area 2's hanging off area 0 and they will all talk perfectly happily to each other.
Your real problem here is in the design not the technology.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SHARMA,MOHIT (HP-Germany,ex1) [mailto:mohit.sharma@hp.com]
> Sent: 12 June 2003 11:20
> To: 'FELICEAR@sbcglobal.net'; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: RE: OSPF partitioning issue
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks to all for your inputs.
>
> SO in summary, there would be problems arising in this
> scenario, if the link
> between area2 goes down and it is partitioned.
>
> Which leads to my other question. What is the best way to
> solve this, by
> using a virtual link or by using a tunnel?
>
> As I mentioned if I use the tunnel, it does not seem to work. ANd with
> virtual links I am not sure, if you can really implement it for
> non-backboone area.
>
> Smiles,
>
> Mohit.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FELICEAR@sbcglobal.net [mailto:FELICEAR@sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:16 AM
> To: SHARMA,MOHIT (HP-Germany,ex1)
> Subject: Re: OSPF partitioning issue
>
>
> All of Area two should be directly connected and not
> just by Area 0...discontiguous is bad. Better off to
> make one of the Area 2s into Area 3. Get 100 routers
> in each area re-converging when the link to Area 0
> goes down and unable to directly communicate...it is
> not pretty....and if you get a flapping
> link...wehaa...and when you try to summarize ...more
> fun...
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "SHARMA,MOHIT (HP-Germany,ex1)"
> <mohit.sharma@hp.com>
> To: "'Group'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: OSPF partitioning issue
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >In the following scenario-
> >
> >
> > Area0---------Area2
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > Area2
> >
> >If the link between Area2 fails, it becomes
> discontiguos, this makes the
> >intra area routes to be shown as inter area routes in
> both the area 2
> >routers, I tested this in the lab and found no
> visible reachability issues.
> >Does this disconinuity create any hidden problems?
> >
> >The other question is, that if we need to repair
> this, can i use a virtual
> >link between Aree2 to Area 0 and then to Area 2
> >or should I use a tunnel interface on each router
> putting them into area 2??
> >I actually tried it using tunnel but was not able to
> make it work , as I was
> >still seeing some of the Area 2 routes as O IA routes.
> >
> >Thanks as always for your inputs.
> >
> >Smiles,
> >
> >Mohit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:10:57 GMT-3