Hi Acee, I guess Jin is asking that a non-optimal path might be chosen when other routers in backbone area can't check the transit area's summary lsa to update the intra-area route. This should be a drawback of virtual link, I think.
Kui -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:11 AM To: Anton Smirnov Cc: OSPF List; Jin Wang Subject: Re: [OSPF] Doubt for virtual link cost ? Hi Anton, Jin, I guess I don't really understand the point of controversy here. I agree with Anton. Note that if there is not an active virtual link then the non-backbone area is not a transit area. Thanks, Acee On Apr 29, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Anton Smirnov wrote: > Jin, > right. In network design where such scenario is possible you always > can create VL between this ABR and ABR providing best path via transit > area. This will make the best path 'visible' to other routers in > backbone. > > Anton > > > Jin Wang wrote: >> >> Thanks for anton's response. >> But if so,only the traffic going through this ABR(determined >> before 16.3 >> calculating result) is forwarded by the new optimal path.For those >> other >> traffic not forwarded via this ABR(determined by 16.1 & 16.2) in the >> backbone will not consider the new path(via ABR) even path is >> shorter.right? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Wangjin >> Accton Technology China Company Ltd. >> Shanghai R&D Center >> TEL:+86-021-64859922*6227 >> E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Web Site:www.accton.com.cn >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
