The Routing Guide is slightly off - the PM's do not support Virtual Links
in OSPF, which are needed do configure areas this way. To have an Area 3
behind an Area 2, the ABR in Area 3 has a Virtual Link to the ABR in Area 0 -
in effect causing the router in Area 3 to have an interface in Area 0 -
albeit virtually.
PM's don't do this.
>However, on page 3-2 of the Portmaster Routing Guide it states "All routers
>must have at least one interface in area 0.0.0.0", which would constrain
>network design much more severely than RFC-1583.
Only if the network is all PMs. Since the virtual link issue is generally
only an issue for core routers, and PMs are not designed as core routers,
it wasn't felt to be important as a feature. This is really the only
noticable discrepancy from the RFC that I'm aware of. There just wasn't
demand for the virtual links, and they are one of the more complex items
to implement, so it was decided not to do so.
-MZ
-- -=*X I'm going down... under that is! <URL:http://www.aussie-isp.net/> X*=- <URL:mailto:megazone@megazone.org> Gweep, Discordian, Author, Engineer, me.. Join ISP/C Internet Service Providers' Consortium <URL:http://www.ispc.org/> "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 781-788-0130 <URL:http://www.megazone.org/> <URL:http://www.gweep.net/> Hail Discordia! - 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/>