At 3:35 PM +0000 8/2/03, Charles Cthulhu Riley wrote: >Less IP addresses used?
Typically, the advantage of P2P is that you can impose individual policies on each spoke. A basic such example would be bandwidth matching the CIR if all CIR's are not the same. Spoke-specific access lists would be another. Routing configuration generally is easier. You also get finer granularity for SNMP, accounting, etc. P2M might slightly conserve IP addresses, but, more significantly, it conserves Interface Descriptor Blocks (IDB) and interface buffers in the IOS. In some respects, it's more intuitive, although the routing configuration is more complex. > wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Guys, >> >> Very quick one here. >> >> If I have a hub site with 5 spoke sites on an FR network, I could use FR >> P2P sub ints or P2M sub ints. >> >> Why would I prefer a P2P over P2M method? The routing protocol would be >> EIGRP and apart from broadcast traffic being 5 times more than a P2P >> network, why would it be better for a P2P. I mean the split horizon can >be > > turned off on the hub multipoint interface. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73417&t=73417 -------------------------------------------------- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
