[c-nsp] OSPF point-to-point vs dr/bdr

[Rodney Dunn]

"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, sthaug at nethelp.no 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, sthaug at nethelp.no
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> >>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >>> 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.