Opinions regarding isis multiarea

From: Gustavo Novais (gustavo.novais@novabase.pt)
Date: Mon Aug 15 2005 - 17:41:51 GMT-3

• Next message: marvin greenlee: "RE: 3550 lab stp [bcc][faked-from][bayes]"
• Previous message: Kelly Scroggins: "searching the groupstudy archives ... What's the best way?"
• Next in thread: Anthony Sequeira: "Re: Opinions regarding isis multiarea"
• Maybe reply: Anthony Sequeira: "Re: Opinions regarding isis multiarea"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hello Group

I have a doubt regarding what is best practice and recommended for doing
on the lab (I know "ask the proctor!!") regarding ISIS multiarea.
We have the possibility of configuring up to three NET on a router,
supposedly to help on migration issues. This possibility will in fact
"merge" both areas on which the router is placed, meaning that the
flooding etceetc will be only one.

By the other hand we can use multi area support (one L2 and up to 29 L1
areas) each on different isis process, being all L1 stubs, and have all
the "fun" regarding route leaking etc etc.

My question is why should we on lab use one versus another, if not
specifically told.
Opinions are welcome.

Thanks

Gustavo

• Next message: marvin greenlee: "RE: 3550 lab stp [bcc][faked-from][bayes]"
• Previous message: Kelly Scroggins: "searching the groupstudy archives ... What's the best way?"
• Next in thread: Anthony Sequeira: "Re: Opinions regarding isis multiarea"
• Maybe reply: Anthony Sequeira: "Re: Opinions regarding isis multiarea"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:01:19 GMT-3