From: W. Alan Robertson (warobertson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 18:50:19 GMT-3
Folks,
This thread pretty much got out of hand, too. It is a matter of
personal preference how one chooses to implement wildcard masking on
OSPF network statements. Obviously, the ability to compute correct
wildcard masks is important, not only for OSPF, but also in the case
of implementing various lists.
That said, there is nothing wrong or inappropriate with having a
single statement for each and every interface under the OSPF process
utilizing a 0.0.0.0 wildcard mask. What does the "0.0.0.0" mask mean
after all? It simply means that I want to add an interface to the
OSPF process that matches each and every octet that I am specifying.
It is the most granular means of specifying an interface, and there's
nothing inherently wrong with specificity. In most cases, it is
highly desirable.
Yes, it does mean extra commands, but in most situations, this is
trivial. On a high-end router with a great many interfaces, sure, for
purposes of efficiency, the use of less specific wildcards can save
some time, but let's not have a meltdown about it.
Myself, I am in the habit of using the 0.0.0.0 mask. There are no
"unintended consequences" with this approach, and many consider it to
be a best practice. (Mentor Technologies actually teaches this method
in their OSPF workshop.) While it may be more typing up front, it'll
save you a lot of time when you need to troubleshoot something that's
not working, and that's really where time counts.
Alan
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:56 GMT-3