From: Peter van Oene (pvo@usermail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 11:34:07 GMT-3
At 12:20 PM 6/12/2003 +0200, SHARMA,MOHIT (HP-Germany,ex1) wrote:
>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.
Hi Mohit,
There are only issues if you happen to announce the same summary LSA's from
both ABRs that connect to area 2. In this case, you might blackhole some
routes. If this isn't the case, as you observed, there are no issues here
from a connectivity point of view. If you happen to have this link die,
I'd just go ahead a fix it. You won't have any burning control plane
issues to deal with that would necessitate any of the below fixes.
Pete
>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