I don't believe that is a valid design. Fred Reimer - CCNA
Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -----Original Message----- From: alaerte Vidali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Two ABRs on the same area - requirements [7:72587] Can you see any mistake in the following network? Rx ---area 5------R2----area 0-------R3------------- | | area 0 | | | Ry ---area 5------R1-------------------------area 0-- R1, R2 and R3 are connected through area 0. R1 and R2 are ABRs for area 5. I am wondering if R1 and R2 should be connected through area 5 for a better design. The bad situation I see is that Rx and Ry will have different databases, although they are in the same area. From the routing table standpoint there will be conectivity. Any Thoughts? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72595&t=72587 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
