At 6:27 PM +0000 7/18/03, 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.
If the medium connecting them isn't going to be horribly expensive, I would connect them. I don't like having areas that can be partitioned with a single point of failure. The underlying design question about forming an area, however, is application traffic flow. Is it more likely that Rx and Ry will need to communicate with one another than Ra and Rb in Area 0.0.0.42? In other words, does area 0.0.0.5 represent a community of interests (i.e., a collection of users and servers likely to talk to one another)? Alternatively, is it a plausible geographic region, where having alternate paths won't be terribly expensive? > >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. Why do you think they would have different databases? Both in OSPF and ISIS, one of the fundamental assumptions is the databases will synchronize -- they will have either the original link or a reliable copy of it. > >Any Thoughts? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72632&t=72587 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
