Re: P-t-P or P-t-M?

From: simone schiassi (simone.ciscolab@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2006 - 15:53:26 GMT-3

• Next message: aminul.siddiqui@gmail.com: "Visa"
• Previous message: Huizinga, Rene: "WTS: Misc. Lab-equipment in NL/D !!!!!!!"
• Maybe in reply to: simone schiassi: "P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• Next in thread: Brian McGahan: "RE: P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

2006/3/28, Brian McGahan <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>:
>
> Design-wise point-to-point subnets with point-to-point
> subinterfaces are the best way to go. If you're asking within the
> context of the CCIE lab the answer is a little more complex. Since p2p
> is the easiest design-wise you should familiarize yourself with the
> other variations for lab preparation purposes.
>
> HTH,
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
> Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
> 24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
> Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/

Could a point to point subinterface from one side to a physical point to
point to the other bring to particular behaviours to consider with ospf?

• Next message: aminul.siddiqui@gmail.com: "Visa"
• Previous message: Huizinga, Rene: "WTS: Misc. Lab-equipment in NL/D !!!!!!!"
• Maybe in reply to: simone schiassi: "P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• Next in thread: Brian McGahan: "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