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

From: simone schiassi (simone.ciscolab@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2006 - 19:25:05 GMT-3

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

2006/3/29, simone schiassi <simone.ciscolab@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> 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 <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/
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
If the physical interface is the hub I can have problems with split-horizon
if I have a point-to-multipoint topology, because it's all configured under
one subnet.
If the phyical interface is one of the spokes I can configure the network
type either point-to-point or point-to-multipoint with no difference, am I
right?

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