[c-nsp] Re: ospf design question

[Frotzler, Florian]

Like Gert already mentioned, keep it simple.

Regarding B): best choice, do it.

Regarding C):

If you strictly use only one area in your network design then it has not to be area 0. You can choose whatever number fits for you. The problem is, as soon as your network design changes and you need more than one area, it does not work without area 0 any more. Therefore it's recommended by cisco and others to use area 0 from the beginning. Otherwise it does not scale. Also don't forget that area 0 is the backbone area that connects all other areas, and therefore has a special meaning within the ospf protocol specification.

Florian

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Kent
> Sent: Montag, 17. Jänner 2005 20:44
> 
> With three routers in a point-to-point row:
> 
> [rtr1]<-->[rtr0]<-->[rtr2]
> 
> what are the principal differences between these three ospf designs:
> 
> A) Three areas: area 0 in the middle, one ospf process/router.
> 
> B) It's all area 0, one ospf process/router.
> 
> C) No area 0.  The endpoints (rtr1, rtr2) have one
>    ospf process each with one area defined, covering
>    the interface between it and the neighbor.
> 
>    The internal router has two ospf processes 
>    defined, each like above, with one area per
>    process and "redist ospf <other-process>"
> 
> I note that despite the cisco ospf design guide saying that 
> there has to be a area 0, it seems that is not true in 
> practice (i.e., C works).
> 
> Thanks,
> -mark
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>