From: Bob Usa (boby2kusa@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 13:56:15 GMT-3
   
Hello,
Thanks for the info.  I had a feeling that's what might be going on but need
confirmation it wasn't discussed in any Cisco press book. Anyway, there
might not be any need in my scenario but I am just experimenting if in case
I need to redistribute to a classful at R4 and the classful are all /24.  I
think in 12.1 I should be be able to summarize in area 0 so that when I
redistribute to a classfull RP everything that has the same mask will be
redistributed.  Thanks again.
>From: "StudyManiac" <groupstudy1@home.com>
>Reply-To: "StudyManiac" <groupstudy1@home.com>
>To: "'Bob Usa'" <boby2kusa@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: Virtual-link and Area range
>Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:30:42 -0500
>
>This happens becaue the virtual link PUTS R4 in area 0.  That's the whole
>idea behind a virtual link.  So now the routes it learns are intra-area.  I
>don't know why you'd ever need to summarize area 0 into R4 once the virtual
>link is created.   Routers in the same area must have full routing
>information for that area - by design.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Bob Usa
>Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:18 PM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Virtual-link and Area range
>
>
>Hello,
>
>This question might have been asked before but I just could not find
>anything about it in the archives.
>
>Topology:
>
>   Area 2 /25 ---- R4
>                   s1
>                    |
>                    |
>                  Area 1 10.2.2.x/28
>                    |
>                    |
>                   R5
>                   s1
>                    |
>                    |
>                  Area 0 10.2.1.x/30
>                    |
>                    |
>                   R3
>
>Before virtual link is enabled, I can see the /24 of Area 0 at R4 due to
>area range at R5.  After I enable the virtual link on R4 and R5 over area 1
>the /24 is no longer at the routing table of the R4.  Also, before the
>virtaul link the route for 10.2.1.x was OSPF Inter-area which makes sense
>but after the virtual-link was enabled the route looks like an intra-area
>route, no IA.  Can somebody shed some light on this?  There has to be a way
>to advertise a summarized network to R4 whe virtual link is enabled.
>
>TIA
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:25 GMT-3