@Anthony-Sequeira No worries Anthony. I haven't put this in a lab just yet, I am short on routers at the moment (Turning up two new sites this week).. On paper, I think this area configuration would be fine, but you have to ask, why set it up this way? My reasons are only administrative/documentation driven.. You see each of our smaller remote locations is referenced by a number. So let's say Area 1 represents a location we call Location 1. Then when we go to deploy Location 2 I will setup an Area 2 and so on....
In this particular instance we have a remote location with two buildings and two separate internet connections. So now I have a clash between my area naming convention and the physical locations. I have two Location 1's essentially. In the end, the configuration would end up looking something like this where both routers in Area 1 would be connected to both routers in Area 0. This could be a problem under certain link failure scenarios. For example....
So I am thinking it best in my particular scenario that instead of making both of "Location 1" sites use the same area, probably better to do something like Area 1 and Area 2001 or in dotted decimal, .0.0.7.209..
That way each "Location 1" site can be an island and there is no danger of the area entering a split brain scenario depending on what links fail. Having the second location be up above 2000, will allow me to keep the naming convention sequence for other sites too.. Unless we deploy over 2000 bases, yikes that'd be some huge growth.
This all sounding sane? Any errors in logic?