From: Joe Chang (changjoe@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 14:41:18 GMT-3
Well, you say toh-MAH-toes and I say toh-MAY-toes. I hope we've confused Mr.
Poole sufficiently for his next attempt.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: OSPF stub areas
> At 11:30 AM -0400 2/4/03, Joe Chang wrote:
> >For my own lab attempts I didn't follow such an approach. In programming,
> >over-designing something can lead to unforseen side-effects. I think this
> >applies to configuring routers as well.
>
>
> There's over-designing, but there's also designing for avoiding
> errors and enhancing troubleshooting and maintainability. In
> programming, the key concept of "information hiding" came from DL
> Parnas in 1968. The idea is to hide as much information from lower
> levels as possible -- less to get them confused and less overhead.
>
> Most good routing architects practice significant information hiding,
> although this doesn't always seem to be the CCIE Way, which freely
> admits it doesn't reflect best current practices. In the real world,
> stubbiness, defaults, aggregation, etc., all make things more
> scalable and reliable.
>
> It might be an interesting thing to put to the proctor -- "since
> there is no requirement for externals or virtual links in this area,
> is it acceptable for me to make it stubby to simplify its databases
> and make troubleshooting easier?"
>
> "Since this area either has only one ABR, or if there are no
> requirements to do end-to-end route optimization (i.e., closest exit
> is adequate), is it acceptable for me to make the area totally
> stubby?"
>
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Matthew Poole" <matthew.poole@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 10:27 AM
> >Subject: OSPF stub areas
> >
> >
> >> More assumptions!
> >>
> >> Should I assume that OSPF areas should be configured as stubs if
eligible
> >to
> >> be so, although the lab doesn't specifically request it?
> >>
> >> I've just completed a lab and in the solution they did this - why not
take
> >it
> > > one step further and make it totally stubby?
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:07 GMT-3