[c-nsp] BFD alternative

[Mark Tinka]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20110110/9bd8bfbb/attachment.pgp>