On Monday, January 10, 2011 02:16:20 am Jason Lixfeld wrote: > Can you give me an example of how you believe it will be > harder to troubleshoot? We've considered this in our > decision to go unnumbered, but haven't found any > compelling arguments yet that support the idea a more > complicated troubleshooting methodology. > > The reason for going unnumbered is mainly for > administrative purposes than IP conservation. Because > of the way our fibre plant is laid out, we essentially > daisy chain these nodes together into a ring/loop/chain, > whatever you want to call it. In a L2 world, we can add > a node anywhere, let the SVI arp itself out and it just > works; very plug and play'ish. In an L3 world, if we > want to add a node, we need hands in the two adjacent > nodes to configure new IPs before the new node is > reachable. This now increases the potential for human > error tremendously. We think that unnumbered would make > this look and feel more like the L2 world when > installing new nodes.
We do rings as well, and use /30's (v4) + /126's (v6) to number two end-points between a link in a ring. I don't see how complicated this is than any other aspect of putting the nodes in place anyway, but no two networks are the same. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
