Don't believe I saw an answer to this one. Of course it is late and my
glasses need cleaning....
There is a context to everything.
A metric is a measure of something. With RIP it is hops, with IPX it is
ticks. One might argue that cost is really another term for metric, but I
suppose that is not technically correct.
If you look at the output of a show ip route for any of the routing
protocols, you will see within the brackets for each learned route two
numbers. [a/b]
The "a" is always the administrative distance, in the Cisco hierarchy. E.g.
RIP AD = 120, IGRP AD = 90, etc
The "b" is referred to in the literature as the "metric" The number that
appears there is the metric or cost, depending upon the routing protocol in
question. E.g. hops for RIP, cost for OSPF ( sum of media/bandwidth
values ), or the infamous (E)IGRP composite metric consisting of bandwidth,
delay, load, reliability, MTU
I suppose one can say that OSPF uses a metric consisting of cost, which is
calculated by adding the results of each link using the formula 10^8 divided
by bandwidth. The lower the cost, the better the route. The lower the
metric, the better the route. Same as for distance vector protocols, where
the lower the hop count or the lower the tick, the better the route.
Does this help?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 7:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Cost vs Metric
Hello
Can someone give me a brief descriptions between the both? the difference
between Cost and Metric?
Thanks....
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
