From: Leigh Harrison (ccileigh@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 03 2006 - 14:01:03 ART
All,
I have an issue with a customer. We've designed them a big new LAN and
they are more than happy with it. The problem lies with the WAN link
and the person who looks after the WAN links for the customer. The
layout is like this:-
6509 - - - 6509
| |
- - 3725 - -
- - -| | - - -
| |
3745 - - - 3745
If the diagram doesn't come out right, I have 2 x 6509's at the core of
the LAN. They both connect on point to point links to a 3725 and the
3725 connects to 2 x 3745's which connect to the WAN. There is plans to
put a second 3725 in place soon after this has gone in.
The 3745's and the 3725 are managed by the WAN provider, but the
customer is giving them the config that he'd like on the 3725.
EIGRP runs between the 3725 and the 3745's and BGP runs over the 3745
and the WAN.
I suggested to my customer that we run a different EIGRP process (or
OSPF) beween the 2 6509's and the 3725 (and the future 2nd 3725),
redistributing, using routem-maps between the two protocols on the
3725. However, my customers WAN guy wanted to have static routing
between the 6509's and the 3725. I went in to see them on Friday and
configured up a test bed to prove that it will work no problems.and all
seemed well. I then got a mail this morning from the WAN guy stating
that he's not happy with dynamic routing and thinks that static is much
better.
I would appreciate any comments that I could use in the defense of using
dynamic routing over static routing in this situation?
Thanks in advance,
LH
#15331
PS - The WAN guy is in the process of studying for a CCNP and his main
concern is routes "leaking" into the WAN...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:46 ART