From: Mitchell, TJ (tmitchell@allianttech.com)
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 17:23:52 GMT-3
R2 isn't in area 0, so the idea won't work.
Unless of course you configure a tunnel to area 0 through area 2 without
using virtual-links then virtual-link R1 to R2 though the tunnel using
area 1. Then that would put the tunnel interface of R2 in area 0. But
then R2 is in area 1 as well so no virtual links would be required, but
then your going to run into the issue of learning the tunnel interfaces
through the tunnel and your tunnel will work intermittently due to
learning the destination tunnel address through the tunnel rather than
through the interface.
Everyone follow that?? :)
T.J. Mitchell
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
sundar.palaniappan@verizon.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:37 PM
To: cciein2006@yahoo.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Strange Routing choice with OSPF Virtual-Link
Try creating a virtual link between R1 and R2 via Area 1
HTH,
Sundar Palaniappan
CCIE #14532
cciein2006@yahoo.
com To:
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent by: cc:
nobody@groupstudy Subject: Re: Strange
Routing choice with OSPF Virtual-Link
.com
09/21/2005 12:27
PM
Please respond to
cciein2006
Sorry the diagram didn't line up right.
Hope this is a little clearer:
Area 1
(R1)-(R2)
|AREA2|<----141.108.10.0/30
(R3)-(R4)
Area 0
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:16 GMT-3