Re: Ospf area - discontigous

Good morning to you, I hope you are doing well.

Your design is fine, no worries. Why do you suspect there would be a
problem?

You have an area, area 2, that is connected to the area 0 via two links.
Nothing wrong with this ... is area 2 a normal area? You might have some
considerations if it was a stub area and having multiple uplinks ...

An ABR is a router that has interfaces in at least two areas ... oh ... and
one of those should be area 0.

;-)

I would suggest reading the OSPF design guide (if you have not yet):
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_white_paper09186a0080094e9e.shtml

A MUST READ for anyone wanting to learn and design OSPF. If this is a
production network, I would suggest lab testing this design first. Be sure
to use the same IOS versions and commands ...

HTH, wishing you a great day!

Andrew Lissitz

.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Thameem Maranveetil Parambath <
security.goodie_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear experts,
>
> I have a scenario listed below. Even though it is not a discontigous area,
> I
> would like to know if there is any issues that could happen with this
> design.
>
>
> Coresw1,coresw2,coresw3,coresw4 are all in area 0.
>
> I have a distribution switch say dr01 in area 2. dr01 is connected to
> coresw1 and coresw2 in two different links.
>
> Is there any flaw in this design? Does it require to have the ABRs of area
> 2 , in this case coresw1 and coresw2 to have a commonlink (GRE) between
> them
> and in area 2?
>
> Your replies are much appreciated.
>
> Warm Regards
> Thameem
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew Lee Lissitz
all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net