RE: P-t-P or P-t-M?

From: Aaron T. Woland (aaron.woland@ins.com)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2006 - 15:13:08 GMT-3

• Next message: Binh P Hoang: "Cisco 7200 simulator"
• Previous message: Brian McGahan: "RE: P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• Maybe in reply to: simone schiassi: "P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• Next in thread: simone schiassi: "Re: P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Point-to-point needs to be configured on a sub-interface.

-Aaron

Aaron T. Woland | Consultant | INS | Email: aaron.woland@ins.com |
Website: www.ins.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
simone schiassi
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:59 PM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: P-t-P or P-t-M?

How's better to confiugre a physical interface for a frame-relay link with
ospf that goes from a physical serial interface to a single subinterface on
the other router? point to point or point to multipoint?

I'm asking this because I read somewhere that configuring point to point on
a physical interface could create addictive issues.

• Next message: Binh P Hoang: "Cisco 7200 simulator"
• Previous message: Brian McGahan: "RE: P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• Maybe in reply to: simone schiassi: "P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• Next in thread: simone schiassi: "Re: P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 10:07:40 GMT-3