From: Huan Pham (huan.pham@valuenet.com.au)
Date: Sun May 04 2008 - 02:22:03 ART
Hi
The two ends of a virtual link have to be in the same area.
How VL 1-3 in the solution 2 is going to work? As you said that you tested
OK for both solutions, I am just curious to see your config for solution 2.
Thanks.
BTW, in you example, if your objective is to have full reachability, you
will only need one VL between 1-2 or 2-3. You will only have problem when
you add another area to any of the routers.
Cheers,
Huan
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
V.Shekhar@GlobalAssurance.net
Sent: Sunday, 4 May 2008 2:06 PM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: OSPF Virtual Link confusion.
Any suggestions on this?
V.Shekhar@GlobalAssurance.net wrote:
> Consider a scenario
>
> R1---R2---R3--vlan3
>
> Link R1--R2 is in OSPF area 12
> link R2 --R3 is in OSPF area 23
> VLAN3 on R3 is in area 0
> Loopback int on R1 R2 and R3 are in area 0.
>
> Now to connect dis contiguous area 0 i can have 2 possible solutions.
>
> SOL1:
> VL from R1 to R2 and VL form R2 to R3
>
> SOL2:
> VL form R1 to R3 and VL from R2 to R3.
>
> I have seen in various WBs that they follow SOL1.
> I have tested both solutions work. however thats the advantage of
> using one over other? will I be peanilised for the solution I choose?
>
> Thanks!
> -V Shekhar
> CCIE(sec)#17589/CISSP/RHCE.
>
>
> Pass the CCIE in six weeks, Guaranteed!
> http://www.certscience.com/CCIE
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2008 - 06:59:15 ART