Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!cgch!whna
From: whna@cgch.UUCP (Heinz Naef)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: OSPF Area Routing
Keywords: OSPF, area, border, routing, router, link state, subnetting.
Message-ID: <878@cgch.UUCP>
Date: 11 Sep 89 15:27:42 GMT
Sender: news@cgch.UUCP
Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland
Lines: 32

Hello Neighbors,

the article on OSPF in ConneXions Aug. 89 says:

  "... An area is a generalization of a subnetted network; it should be noted
   that all subnets of a network must be contained within a single area."

Assume a large organization having a single Class B Network Number divided
into subnets. The subnet number space is partitioned into groups to form
clusters of a certain amount of autonomy. It would be highly desirable to
treat each of these groups as an OSPF routing area in order to establish a
hierarchical routing scheme, combined with routing firewalls for enhanced
overall availability, reliability and security.

Is our interpretation correct that OSPF, instead of allowing to break down
a subnetted network into areas, is based on a model which groups subnetted
networks together within one area? If yes, then this is a new form of the
Autonomous System concept, isn't? What's the difference?

Any suggestions what could be done to implement *our* model? Remember, the
network described above is *not* connected to The Internet.

Could anyone who is actively dealing with OSPF send a short message back
including references to further information available about OSPF? We are
very interested in this development and would like to discuss further
aspects.

Thanks in advance, and best regards,
Heinz Naef, c/o CIBA-GEIGY AG, R-1045.3.37, P.O.Box, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland
  UUCP:     cgch!whna
  Internet: whna%cgch.uucp@uunet.uu.net              Phone: (+41) 61 697 26 75
  BITNET:   whna%cgch.uucp@cernvax.bitnet            Fax:   (+41) 61 697 32 88