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

From: simone schiassi (simone.ciscolab@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2006 - 19:20:35 GMT-3

• Next message: simone schiassi: "Re: P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• 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 ]

2006/3/28, Brian McGahan <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>:
>
> What is the difference in the OSPF network type between a main
> interface and a point-to-point subinterface? How does this affect your
> design considerations?
>
> 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/

The difference I can think of is that the physical interface is force to be
configured in a single subnet, while I can have different subnets with
subinterfaces.

• Next message: simone schiassi: "Re: P-t-P or P-t-M?"
• 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