Dhiman,
Directly connected interfaces have a lower administrative distance than
routing protocols. My guess is that R3 is routing via the directly
connected interface, assuming that I33 and I22 are on the same IP subnet,
and not via OSPF.
Harold is correct, they shold be in the same area. They will never become
adjancent and effectively creating two different OSPF domains.
Kev
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold Ritter [mailto:hritter@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 7:56 AM
> To: dhiman@cs.bu.edu
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [nsp] ospf link
>
>
> Dhiman,
>
> I'm not too certain what your topology is but R3 and R2 should have their
> respective directly connected interface in the same area. Can you tell us
> more about your topology.
>
> At 06:52 AM 3/28/2002 -0500, Dhiman Barman wrote:
> >Hi,
> > I cannot explain this:
> >
> > B1-----------------------------------B6
> > |
> |
> > R1-B2-----------B4-R2-I22------II33--R3
> > | Area 1
> Area 2
> > B3
> >
> >
> > Interface I22 and Interface I33 belong to different areas although
> >connected physically. On configuring OSPF (Bs denote Area 0),
> >I traceroute from R3 to I22 and the route shows that packets
> >go directly from R3 to interface I22 w/o entering backbone.
> >
> >
> >Why should this happen ?
> >
> >
> >dhiman
>
> Harold Ritter, CCIE 4168
> Advanced Network Services - ISP East
> Cisco Systems
> 300 Apollo Drive
> Chelmsford, MA 01824 USA
> Phone: 978 497 3129
> Fax: 978 497 3129
> Cisco Systems- "Empowering the Internet Generation."
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:09 EDT