Oh I agree, if it works for you fine. Just giving you the example of why as you grow your knowledge and experience, you typically do it this way. ☺ no worries!
Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. den...@linktechs.net<mailto:den...@linktechs.net> – 314-735-0270 – www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 2:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mt ospf question That’s right. I’d better request an advisory ruling. From: George Skorup<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 12:45 PM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mt ospf question Easily negated with a routing filter on the OSPF-out chain. We can all argue this all day long. Nobody is wrong. Run your network how you want.. until the FCC starts dictating routing config too. :| On 5/21/2015 12:39 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote: You have tech ports on your routers, say, 10.199.199.1/24 on each site. That is a private block that you NAT at each site just for your on-site tech to use if needed.. now, the issue, all of your routers are advertising and basically arguing who has 10.199.199.0/24 !
