From: Nick Shah (nshah@connect.com.au)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 22:12:51 GMT-3
> Sorry, don't really understand what do You mean ?
> Do You mean if other parts of area "0" have one type of auth, virt link
has
> to have the same type ? I believe they have to be the same only on
> multiaccess media. Of course if lab req say to have the same type in area
> "0" - they ave to be the same.
>
> I guess both ways of defining of authentication lead to the same result.
> with exceptions:
> 1) It's easier to put one statement "area 0 authentication
[message-digest]"
> under ospf process rather than put it under each interface
> 2) "interface" variant overrides "ospf process" variant
What I meant here was that you could specify a different authentication
type (override the auth. in area 0), if specified.
If not, stick to same auth. type as area 0.
So, I did_not mean that it was mandatory to use same auth. type.
> There are no problems in this full mesh scenario : if DR gone, BDR will be
> promoted to DR and DROTHER will be BDR. I see only problem in extra
election
> processes in case of failure.
> The same time, network type P-2-M doesn't have election process, it forms
> adjacencies between
> direct neighbors - so it may have less overhead because of that on NMBA
> (like FR) medias.
What I meant there was that in case of full mesh, 'leave room' for a BDR to
be elected (ie. dont nail everyone except one with a zero priority). But you
are right in ur understanding.
You are right, P2M wont have any election, so if 'election' is a 'biggest
fear' :) , chose P2M.
rgds
Nick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:47 GMT-3