A lot of different things come into play here. If this is a simple topology there is no reason we can't have area 0 for everything. If you have a ton of routes going back and forth between the sites, you may make each site an area and leave area 0 for the core and distribution. With that design you would just have type 3 summary LSAs going between the areas.
If you are running point-to-point subinterfaces you will not have a DR and you will not have to deal with priority at all. At the end of the day, it is more of a design decision depending on your environment! HTH On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Ryan Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > Why are you set on using OSPF and not something like EIGRP? It seems like > you have a cisco only environment and typically OSPF is deployed for mixed > vendor. IMHO, it is easier to manage route summarization with EIGRP than > area placement with OSPF. > > HTH, > > Ryan > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Jason Leblanc <[email protected]>wrote: > >> If I have: >> 2 Cores (6500's) >> 2 Distribution Routers (6500's) >> 10 Remote sites all connected via fiber to keep this question easier >> (4500's) >> >> Where do I put my area 0? Core or Distro? >> Do I configure all 10 sites as point to points? priority 0? or make either >> the core or distro priority 255? (design wise whats best practice here) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > -- Regards, Joe Astorino - CCIE #24347 R&S Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. Cell: +1.586.212.6107 Fax: +1.810.454.0130 Mailto: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
