I should have limited that to one big area vs one big area 0. I'm all for
single areas when they suit, but I agree that using a non zero area can have
some benefits.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 8/17/2001 at 10:24 AM Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>>I'm not sure where you got the idea that one big area zero is a bad
>thing?
>
>Me, as one example.
>
>But let me make an important distinction, borrowing from George Orwell
>
> Four legs good One big area not necessarily bad
> Two legs bad One big area zero bad
>
>If you have a moderate number of routers without any obvious
>hierarchy, a single area can make perfectly good sense. I do
>recommend, however, numbering that area ANYTHING but 0.0.0.0.
>
>You don't need your first area to be 0.0.0.0. But if later company
>growth, mergers/acquisitions/divestitures, etc., mean that hierarchy
>becomes appropriate, your second area MUST be 0.0.0.0, and the third,
>etc., are nonzero.
>If you start by numbering all the routers in the One Big Area in
>0.0.0.0, that means that you will need to renumber the network
>statements when you grow. Making the One Big Area 0.0.0.1 won't hurt
>anything and will make things much more flexible with respect to
>future requirements.
>
>Incidentally, in a multivendor conversion like this, be sure to
>specify area numbers and router IDs explicitly and in four-octet
>format -- in other words, area 0.0.0.1, not area 1. Not all vendors
>interpret area numbers in the same way -- Bay RS, in some versions,
>would convert "area 1" to "area 1.0.0.0." 3Com's default router ID,
>on some platforms, was derived through some strange algorithm based
>on part of an interface MAC address.
>
>See other comments inline.
>
>>
>>In this case, I would highly recommend it. This is a pretty small network
>>and I really don't see the benefit of adding hierarchy to it from a
>>multi-area perspective. Keep in mind that the more you segment an OSPF
>area
>>into sub-areas, the more link state qualities you forego. I'd go with
>your
>>boss on this one.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>>
>>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>>
>>On 8/17/2001 at 12:17 AM Bob Timmons wrote:
>>
>>>Greetings all,
>>>
>>>We're converting our 3Com router world to Cisco soon and I have a
>question
>>>regarding the OSPF design. I'm including a link to a JPG in case anyone
>>>wants to add their 2 cents. You can see it at:
>>>
>>>http://members.tripod.com/~bobtimmons/network-1.jpg
>>>
>>>This is a somewhat simplistic view of our network and the IP's aren't
>real,
>>>but I'm hoping it makes sense regardless. We currently have a full T1
>to a
>>>frame cloud and our other 2 main buildings are off of that cloud as well,
>>>one is 1M, the other is the balance of the T. Both of the remote sites
>are
>>>pointing to the 1 PVC at our main site. My question is, would this OSPF
>>>network work? I know the OBAZ, (One Big Area Zero - Wow! My first
>>>acronym! - Hey Howard, feel free to use that one), is frowned upon, but
>>>that's how my boss wants it, because that's how it is now. Not good
>logic,
>>>but I have to follow orders sometimes.
>>>
>>>A note: We have other sites off of the main site (Site 1) in another
>Frame
>>>Cloud. It shouldn't affect what we're doing here, though.
>>>
>>>Also, I didn't include the IPX networks on the Ethernet ports. That's
>not
>>>a
>>>real issue right now.
>>>
>>>Specifically, I'm unsure about using the Loopbacks. We're going to use
>>>them
>>>for our DLSW (not pictured) links. What I'm unsure about is, can I use
>>>these addresses, as given, with their masks, and distribute them via OSPF
>>>and have it work?
>
>
>Yes, you can distribute loopbacks just fine.
>
>> >
>>>If I'm completely off here, please feel free to let me know.
>>>
>>>I'm including the proposed configs (snipped)
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>> >Site1 -
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16390&t=16341
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
