Which statement is true regarding OSPF multi-area adjacencies?
A.
A type 3 (stub) link is advertised for a multi-area adjacency.
B.
Configuring a multi-area adjacency allows the corresponding link to be considered an interarea
link, so it will be less preferred over an intra-area link.
C.
One logical interface will be a primary link, and the other configured as a secondary link; the
secondary link will be established as an unnumbered point-to-point interface.
D.
A DR and a BDR will be elected over the secondary interface, because it is not point-to-point.
I say this is B
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.2/topics/topic-map/ospf-multiarea-adjacency.html
https://cciethebeginning.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/ospf-inter-area-and-intra-area-routing-rules/
0
0
I will say C, from the same link that JM provided, check the following:
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.2/topics/topic-map/ospf-multiarea-adjacency.html
” For each area, one of the logical interfaces is treated as primary, and the remaining interfaces that are configured for the area are designated as secondary.”
“Secondary interfaces are supported for LAN interfaces (the primary interface can be a LAN interface, but any secondary interfaces are treated as point-to-point unnumbered links over the LAN). In this scenario, you must ensure that there are only two routing devices on the LAN or that there are only two routing devices on the LAN that have secondary interfaces configured for a specific OSPF area.”
The attempt to satisfy greed is like drinking salty water when thirsty.
When lost in greed we look outward rather than inward for satisfaction, yet we never find enough to fill the emptiness we wish to escape.
The real hunger we feel is for knowledge of our true nature.
~ Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche
0
0
C
0
0