I think this would work, but why would you want to do it? Why not make those two parts of Area 5 different areas? Simply from a documenation and human communication point of view, you don't want the design to be confusing. When someone refers to Area 5, you don't want someone else to have to say "which Area 5?"
You'll notice that the OSPF RFC covers partitioned areas but only as something that will work when an area becomes partitioned due to a network problem. In other words, they don't consider it a good design practice, but a workaround. What addressing will you use? OSPF does support discontigous subnets, so you should be OK. However, avoid making this too complex and remember that it's important to be able to summarize prefixes when injecting routes into Area 0. Design books always say to design OSPF hierarchically (and even go so far as to say that OSPF requires a hierarchical design). But I think a partitioned area is actually still allowed, just not a good idea? Comments, anyone else? Thanks. Priscilla alaerte Vidali wrote: > > 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=72597&t=72587 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
