I would tend to agree, I have a similar number of WAN sites, and rely
entirely on static routes on the back end.
But! (There's always a 'but', and sometime with an extra 't') As my network
changes, (read "fiber" and "switches")I plan to go more VLANs, and private
address spaces, for separating networks for security and traffic management.
Yes, still a star; no, not a single-subnet-per-site structure any more.
Soo, suddenly I'll have 60 (or so) subnets out there to route. This
supposes, of course, a couple of subnets per site, a structure which may
deserve some more scrutiny.... (Three thousand systems, 22 metropolitan
locations) "Dynamic" VLANs have some more potential for use and complexity.
Of course, there's legacy involved, as well. The computer wars are bad
enough; the design war solutions tend to stick around for a while. I'd like
to do it more-or-less right the first time.
Best, G.
VP OGC
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
Kipling, on other wars with different soldiers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 3:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: How would you design a Network ? [7:32067]
>
>
> >Listers.
> >
> >I would like to make some routing changes to a mostly static routing
> >environment. Currently everything is either routed via
> default gateway, or
> >static route statements.
> >
> >the environment consists of about 30 remote point to point
> WAN sites, with
> >most data traffic consisting of IP. We have several sites
> on dual T1's, and
> >all sites are terminating at a central corporate location.
> So a big star
> >network. The vendor of choice is cisco for routing and switching.
> >
> >Anyone see OSPF, EIGRP, BGP, IGRP, ISIS as the way to go?
> I would like to
> >make this network more dynamic, just having a hard time
> justifying the move.
> >
> >All thoughts appreciated!
> >
> >thanks,
> >Jason
>
> Without further information, I see no advantage to making this
> network more dynamic. If the issue is "static routes need more
> maintenance," I suggest that you tie the generation of static routes
> to your IP assignment process; it's usually not hard to automate.
>
> If it's already a star, what do you gain in flexibility by adding the
> complexity of dynamic routing? Failover and load balancing are, if
> anything, easier with static than dynamic routes.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32210&t=32067
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
