RE: Command Preference?

Pretty funny battering back and forth. I think it was a good exchange. It
is sometimes difficult to duplicate production problems with a small lab.
But great exchange by all. I learned more detail as well.

Regards,

Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP

From: Narbik Kocharians [mailto:narbikk_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:23 AM
To: Carlos G Mendioroz
Cc: Tyson Scott; Larry Hadrava; Cisco certification; ALL From_NJ
Subject: Re: Command Preference?

Tyson,

I see your point, and I totally respect it. But to me, telling the code to
ignore a check which maybe should not have been there to begin with is more
of a fix than a patch. But i could be wrong, i guess it all depends how you
look at it. But I definitely see what you are saying.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>
wrote:

+1

...although I would have said "instead of applying a patch to a problem" :)

OSPF does this on purpouse, to test link is viable to carry small (hellos)
and large packets. Disabling the test is like silencing the alarm, problem
is still there, might byte you later.

-Carlos

Tyson Scott @ 29/03/2011 03:05 -0300 dixit:

system mtu routing fixes a problem instead of applying a fix to a problem.
Obviously you will always have to follow the lab requirements but my
preference is simply a mindset. Just like with a real network. Preferably
you will fix the underlying issues by fixing the design instead of applying
"
CCIE" tactics to work around issues.

Regards,

Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP

From: Larry Hadrava [mailto:larryh12203_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 5:24 PM
To: Narbik Kocharians
Cc: Tyson Scott; Cisco certification; ALL From_NJ
Subject: Re: Command Preference?

Ok, I have to ask, Tyson, why do you prefer the system mtu routing 1500
choice?

I would recommend to be careful with the wording of the requirement if this
was in a lab setting to be sure which one they were asking you to use.

The requirement might say - Do not disable mismatch detection on receiving
DBD packets which would lead one to use the system mtu routing choice.

If the requirement said - do not use any global configuration command to
allow
the OSPF relationship to form, then that would lead to using the ip ospf
mtu-ignore command.

Thanks
Larry Hadrava
CCIE #12203
Check Out MyBlog: http://ccie12203.wordpress.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Narbik Kocharians" <narbikk_at_gmail.com>
To: "ALL From_NJ" <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com>
Cc: "Tyson Scott" <tscott_at_ipexpert.com>, "Cisco certification"
<ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 5:10:10 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Command Preference?

The only reason i liked the "ip ospf mtu-ignore" is just incase i have to
establish an OSPF session with another box. If this is configured, then, i
don't have to worry about it. But i am sure we all have our reasons why we
chose one option versus the other.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:23 PM, ALL From_NJ <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks everyone! I appreciate hearing your perspectives!

.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Tyson Scott <tscott_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:

I prefer the first.

Regards,

Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
ALL
From_NJ
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:01 PM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: Command Preference?

ok, sent too soon ... sorry about that.

If you are allow to use either, do you have a preference when peering

with

a
switch?

system mtu routing 1500
or
ip ospf ignore-mtu

seems that setting the system mtu routing might save you some trouble

later

on ...

Your thoughts?

Andrew

I know either one will work IF YOU ARE ALLOWED

--
Andrew Lee Lissitz
all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
--
Andrew Lee Lissitz
all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/>