Valid OSPF Design?

---

Hi, I'm looking at implementing an OSPF into an existing environment currently built on all static routes. Just want to confirm this Area design is acceptable from a logical perspective, no IP addresses or networks shown in the diagram at this point.

If this design appears correct, I assume link failures in Area1 will not impact Area2 in any way? Basically lowering route calculation overhead as links fail and come back online... All links are IPSec VPN tunnels, so they are going up and down more frequently than leased lines.

Regards,
Adam Tyler

@Adam-Tyler,

This looks fine as a topology.

It doesn't look fine in your implementation. Your choice of IPsec VPN tunnels and OSPF may not work since VPN tunnels may not work well with multicast traffic used by OSPF.

Try it in a lab environment and see what happens. I'll try it when I get the opportunity but working on crunch project right now...it will be a bit of time before I can do it.

p.s just found this link and the recommendation to make something like this is to use VTI instead of IPsec VPNs. https://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk583/tk372/technologies_white_paper0900aecd8029d629.html

@Adam-Tyler,

This looks fine as a topology.

It doesn't look fine in your implementation. Your choice of IPsec VPN tunnels and OSPF may not work since VPN tunnels may not work well with multicast traffic used by OSPF.

Try it in a lab environment and see what happens. I'll try it when I get the opportunity but working on crunch project right now...it will be a bit of time before I can do it.

p.s just found this link and the recommendation to make something like this is to use VTI instead of IPsec VPNs. https://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk583/tk372/technologies_white_paper0900aecd8029d629.html

Thanks Ronnie, I did make a mistake when I used the term IPsec in my original post.. I plan to use Tunnel interfaces.. The routing product we use in our environment isn't Cisco primarily, but the only way to implement OSPF on this particular platform is to use a tunnel interface. So each link will end up having it's own little /30 network, much like a point to point.

Regards,
Adam Tyler