From: Hansang Bae (hbae@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 01:43:58 GMT-3
At 01:54 PM 1/2/2002 -0600, OWEN, DAN (SWBT) wrote:
>I prefer specifying each interface and network statement with the
>appropriate mask (e.g. if the interface is using a /26 mask, then the OSPF
>network statement should also use the /26 mask).
>I have seen that when you are using a blanket mask (e.g. network 10.1.0.0
>0.0.255.255 area 0) for multiple interfaces (with various-sized subnets
>across multiple routers) that problems occur. Specifically, some routes are
>omitted from the routing table. This usually only becomes a problem in a
>large network, but could appear in a lab environment.
>Being more specific will cost a bit of typing, but could avoid possible
>problems.
On an ABR, it makes sense to use a more specific wildcard mask. But on a
feeder router at a remote location, why bother? All the interfaces will be
in the same area so there's no problem with using a /16 wildcard mask
(/-16?!) Passive-interface handles any interfaces that don't require OSPF.
I guess it really comes down to personal choice.
hsb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:17 GMT-3