From: chrlewis@cisco.com
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 13:14:07 GMT-3
Well it depends, if there is an up interface that is not assigned to
area 2 on R1, why can't you put it in area0 and unnumber to that? It all
depends on the restrictions of the question. The exam will push you to
think like this and weirder.
Chris
________________________________
From: Niche [mailto:jackyliu419@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 11:03 AM
To: Chris Lewis [chrlewis@cisco.com]
Cc: Jian Gu; Imal kalutotage; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: Re- OSPF virtual link
Hi,
Let's take Imal's question as an example,
Yes, you can use the R3's FR interface for that side of ip unnumbered,
but how about the R1 side? No interface is at area 0 under the ospf
process. Create new subnet is because you need to configure that new
subnet under ospf process as area 0 in order to provide the simulation
like VL to extend the area 0 so area 2 has a touch of area 0 in this
case..
Just want to clarify, may be my concept still wrong?
Cheer~
Jacky
On 9/23/05, chrlewis@cisco.com <chrlewis@cisco.com> wrote:
Why would you need to advertize an extra network? Ip unnumbered
works.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto: nobody@groupstudy.com
<mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> ] On Behalf Of
Jian Gu
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:24 AM
To: Imal kalutotage
Cc: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: Re- OSPF virtual link
GRE tunnel will always work but you will need to advertise extra
network
which might not be allowed in the real lab.
On 9/23/05, Imal kalutotage <imal.kalutotage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Group,
> I also have a similar question..
>
> If we have a senario like this
>
> -----------FR ---R3--eth----Cat3550----eth-----R1--------
> Area 0 area 1 area2
>
> R3 is the ABR which connects to the area 0 & area 1.
> R1 is the ABR which connects to the area 1 & area 2
>
> Cat 3350 both svi interfaces are in area 1.
>
> So we need to create a virtual link or tunnel to connect the
area 2 to
> the backbone area.
>
> In this case whcih method is prefered? Tunnel or the
Virtual-link
>
>
> Cheers,
> Imal
>
>
> On 9/23/05, Jian Gu <guxiaojian@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > Meant to say that two ABRs have to have direct L2
connection,
> > otherwise OSPF packets would have been comsumed by transit
routers.
> >
> > On 9/23/05, Jian Gu < guxiaojian@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, all,
> > >
> > > Quick question, an OSPF virtual link has to be established
between
> > > two ABRs, do the two ABRs have to have a direct L2
connection?
> > > (direct L2 connection meaning on one Ethernet segement,
physical
> > > serial link or
> > have a
> > > frame-relay P2P broadcast PVC). I would say no, because
all
> > > multicast OSPF packets would be consumed by transit
routers.
> > > Better explanation anyone?
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:16 GMT-3