Alex P. Rudnev
alex at Relcom.EU.net
Mon Sep 13 19:55:21 UTC 1999
I can't agree. OSPF have a lot of failure modes - in case of the complex
configuration. In case of the plain network with a lot of the simple
links and a very simple configuration - it have not visible disadvantages
at all (except some slowness in case if network increase unlimitedly; and
stability - but juts in this case). And you can't even image the number
of mistakes the network admins can do in case of the static routing (and
remember about the fine CISCO config when you should remove old config
> The real answer - do static routing whereever you have only a single
> path for packets to go thru. To eliminate mistakes, generate
> configuration automatically from master maps kept at network engineering
This case OSPF do the same thing - generate routes when it started up;
and no doubt it do less mistales then the human person.
No, the comparation between OSPF and STATIC looks like the comparation
between the old (from 1950 year) and modern (Mersedess-600) cars - the
first is very simple implemented and difficult to drive; the second is
very complex implemented but very simple to drive (but if you are to be
starving on the unhabitant ireland with the good roads, you'll choose the
first car; but it seemd for me you just choose something more complex in
the real life).
PS. And if someone use STATIC widely, a few years ago some other person
should be sitting for a few days and flame the first one digging through
a heaps of the static routes /it's real example from my life/.
> > --vadim
> KISS - keep things as simple as possible... OSPF is an open protocol, and
> it's very simple in case if you have not 500 routers and 1000 flapping
> routes in the network - what do you searching the headache for?
> Multicast routing depends more from the options you have from the
> hardware vendor - choose the simplest and more standard method and turn
> it on...
> PS. From my lectures to the students, quote:
> The most complex routing method is STATIC - it's easy to implement (for
> the HW vendor) but most difficult to configure.
> The simplest routing is just dynamic routing in the plain schema (for
> example, 'router ospf 1/network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 - just 2 lines
> for the CISCO, compare to the static' - may be it can argue someone do
> not use the static at all -:)
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
More information about the NANOG