From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 17:12:30 GMT-3
I agree completely, network 10.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 is far superior unless
you have a lot of interface. Far easier to troubleshoot in your
production netwokr and far easier to see if the procotor made a change as
well... ;-)
B.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Rick Burts wrote:
> Les
>
> comments are in-line
>
> Rick Burts, CCSI CCIE 4615 burts@mentortech.com
> Mentor Technologies 240-568-6500 ext 6652
> 133 National Business Parkway 240-568-6515 fax
> Annapolis Junction, Md 20701
>
> Chesapeake Network Solutions has now become Mentor Technologies.
> Mentor Technologies is a certified Cisco Training Partner and also
> a Cisco Professional Services partner.
> We offer most of the Cisco training courses.
> We also offer training in Checkpoint Firewall software and
> Fore Systems (now Marconi) and MicroMuse.
> We also provide network consulting services including
> design, management, and problem solving.
> We have 22 CCIEs on our staff.
> We offer the breakthrough VLAB remote access technology for
> access to pratice configuration on real equipment.
>
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Les Hardin wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I'd like to engage in a religious discussion for a moment -- OPSF
> > configuration styles.
> >
> > I know that there are at least 2 schools of thought out there regarding
> > OSPF config.
> >
> > Under router ospf 1:
> > 1) Use network command with classfull IP addresses
> > 2) Use network command with 32-bit interface address, ensuring that only
> > the desired interface is activated for OSPF, then perhaps using area range
> > to summarize.
>
> your comment seems to imply a relationship between the need to summarize
> with area range and the type of mask in the network statement. There is
> NO relationship. The mask used in network statement does not impact
> summarization and does not impact what is advertised (OSPF will use the
> subnet mask from the interface to determine what to advertise).
>
>
> Having said that I will say that my personal preference is to use the
> very specific mask. It is a little more work up front but I find it
> more easy to troubleshoot and certainly may facilitate changes that
> might need to be made down the road.
>
> >
> > I'd like to hear from a few folks as to what their preference is and
> > why. I'm interested as to where the majority of folks sit on this
> > topic. Thanks for your inputs.
> >
> > Les
> > yada yada yada certs
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:44 GMT-3