Of course you can have more than one ABR for an area, but there is no single "area 5" in the diagram below. There are two separate areas, that happen to use the same area ID. Apparently OSPF allows for this in situations where the WAS a link between Rx and Ry and it was temporarily broken (I didn't know this, but it seems logical). However, if they are never connected then the top "area 5" would have a different LSDB than the bottom "area 5."
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: "Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 7:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Two ABRs on the same area - requirements [7:72587] ""Reimer, Fred"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I don't believe that is a valid design. why not? there is nothing that says you can't have more than one ABR for an area. In fact, there is nothing that says you can't give all your areas the same area i.d. There can be problems in doing it this way, but if you give your numbering scheme some thought, or don't summarize when there are discontiguous subnets scattered throughout the domain, nothing bad happens. not the way I would recommend, but then who listens to me anyway ;-> > > 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=72631&t=72587 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
