I always like hierarchy OSPF better than flat newtork EIGRP protocols
:-)
===easier to cotnrol OSPF...
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:43:01 -0700
> CC: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OSPF Design Question
>
>
> Again ymmv but I wouldn't deploy eigrp unless you're sure you're always
> going to be a vendor c shop. Changing igp later on is a pain the bigger the
> network gets. Summarization is also something that I'd be careful with
> deploying - if I'd exceed n amount of prefixes in my igp I'd rather start
> carrying them all in bgp unsummarized (except for RAS or BRAS hells where
> people get /32s a lot). For any kind of advanced TE summarization is poison.
>
>
>
> Kaj
>
>
>
> > From: Ryan Hughes <[email protected]>
> > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:48:01 -0700
> > To: Jason Leblanc <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OSPF Design Question
> >
> > Why are you set on using OSPF and not something like EIGRP? It seems like
> > you
> > have a cisco only environment and typically OSPF is deployed for mixed
> > vendor.
> > IMHO, it is easier to manage route summarization with EIGRP than area
> > placement with OSPF.
_________________________________________________________________
Get free photo software from Windows Live
http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit
www.ipexpert.com
