[c-nsp] OSPF NSSA Question

Brian Feeny signal at shreve.net
Sun Oct 3 23:17:34 EDT 2004

On Oct 3, 2004, at 8:01 PM, Dan Armstrong wrote:
> We "try" and keep the cusotmer's subnets as contiguous as possible, 
> but as people move around the network, summarization becomes 
> difficult.
> I have no problem with making an OSPF area for each access router... I 
> have been told that I might blow up the 6509 pretty quickly, but who 
> knows.
> I am also considering if EIGRP would be a better way to implement 
> this....

If your cisco homogenous then go for it, or if you dont mind 
redistributing igp's into eachother, because you KNOW  your going to 
have a device added someday that doesn't speak EIGRP.

I do find EIGRP more "solid".  OSPF has been with us so long, and yet I 
would argue that every single vendor's implementation is broke.  I say 
that because I have never seen bug free ospf.  The whole "Every area 
must be connected to the backbone" thing can really suck for some 
topologies too.  I have heard that alot of NSP's running very large 
IGP's use IS-IS.


Brian Feeny, CCIE #8036, CISSP
Network Engineer
ShreveNet Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20041003/cd4264ba/PGP.bin

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list