At 1:10 AM +0000 7/20/03, " Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter " wrote: >""Reimer, Fred"" wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 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). > >OSPF allows multiple areas to have the same area id whether they have ever >been connected or not. It's one of those things. It may not be a good idea >in some cases, and there are some caveats, but in general, there is nothing >preventing you from doing so, and true, there are different link state >databases in each of the areas, but routing still works just fine. my point >was that the design itself is valid. it just may not do what you want it to >do - which is keep a single area and therefore keep all intra area traffic >local, and not passing through the backbone. > > >>However, if they are never connected then >> the top "area 5" would have a different LSDB than the bottom "area 5." > >I think I said that. My question remains - so? > >Not being a smart ass. Just pointing out that in terms of how OSPF operates, >there is nothing "wrong" with what was presented originally. that being the >case, how is the design "invalid"?
If you aren't summarizing at all, it will work, although it's going to make things harder to troubleshoot. If you are summarizing, and the summary covers the original area 5 space, you are going to blackhole some routes because each ABR is still advertising the same summary, including more-specifics it can't reach. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72647&t=72587 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
