"ethernet point-to-point" It doesn't do what it sounds like it does.
We are having internal discussions around having a single CLI to simulate p2p behavior. What about if at the first pass you had to manually configure the next hop ip/mac address manually? Rodney On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 09:51:49AM +0100, Paul Cosgrove wrote: > I mistakenly thought you had replied to the previous message I received > in that thread, which was about the RFC which covers multiple link state > protocols. Can you explain what command you are advising us not to use, > does it still exist? Is it a command which is protocol generic or are > you talking about "ip ospf network"? > > Paul. > > Rodney Dunn wrote: > > Not sure. I didn't write it. ;) > > > > From a quick glance it seems to imply that type of behavior but > > I'm not aware it was ever really done. > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 07:42:13PM +0100, Paul Cosgrove wrote: > >> I'm not sure I understand you there. Do you mean that the intention > >> behind the draft RFC was for some form of point-to-point configuration > >> command on the interface, which would apply to all link state routing > >> protocols? > >> > >> Paul. > >> > >> Rodney Dunn wrote: > >>> There was a point to point configuration on the link itself and it > >>> caused a bunch of platform forwarding problems once. > >>> > >>> I wouldn't use that one. > >>> > >>> Note I'm not talking about the OSPF point to point control plane > >>> configuration. > >>> > >>> Rodney > >>> > >>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 07:43:51PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>>>> These are all good points, and makes me wonder - if it's *known* that > >>>>>> an > >>>>>> Ethernet link will be used as a point to point link between two > >>>>>> routers, > >>>>>> why doesn't everybody configure it explicitly as a point to point link? > >>>>>> I know we always do... > >>>>> The benefit/cost ratio is low. You aren't saving much be eliminating > >>>>> DR/BDR > >>>>> election, and it's just one more unnecessary tweak to keep track of. > >>>>> IMHO. > >>>> Funny, we look at it exactly the opposite way. We're a service provider, > >>>> and a large majority of the Ethernet links where we run an IGP are point > >>>> to point links. So we have the point to point configuration as part of > >>>> our standard config template, nothing extra to keep track of. > >>>> > >>>> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > >>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> HEAnet Limited > >> Ireland's Education & Research Network > >> 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1, Ireland > >> Tel: +353.1.6609040 > >> Web: http://www.heanet.ie > >> Company registered in Ireland: 275301 > >> > >> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > > > > -- > HEAnet Limited > Ireland's Education & Research Network > 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1, Ireland > Tel: +353.1.6609040 > Web: http://www.heanet.ie > Company registered in Ireland: 275301 > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
