RE: (PM) PM3 OSPF question

James Courtier-Dutton (dutton@livingston-ent.co.uk)
Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:35:43 -0000

Hello Mike
Oh, I see, the inference you take from the statement is wrong.
I can see who someone would understand it that way.
I think a more accurate statement would be as follows.
"For all routers in an OSPF area, at least one router has to have an
interface in area 0"
So from you example, only R2 has to be in area 0 and area 1
R3 has both interfaces in Area 1, none in area 0.
R1 has no interfaces in area 1.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Bird [mailto:mgb@yosemite.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 12:13
> To: James Courtier-Dutton
> Subject: RE: (PM) PM3 OSPF question
>
>
> Thanks James. The Routing Guide definition would also seem to preclude
> routers which are internal to a non-zero area. For example:
>
> R = Router
> N = Network
>
> INTERNET -- R1 -- N1 -- R2 -- N2 -- R3 -- N3
>
> <- area 0 -><---- area 1 ---->
>
> Is R3, which is internal to area 1, permitted by PM3 OSPF?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Mike
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Bird Tel: 209-742-5000 FAX: 209-966-3117
> President POP: 209-742-5333 PGR: 209-742-9979
> Iron Mtn Systems http://member.yosemite.net/
>

-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>