Hello- who the hell is the Delhi lama? It's the Dalai Lama, dumb-ass. It's Elvis, not elvs. Go back to grade school and learn how to spell. ""Donald B Johnson jr"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Its nothing but morons for a fifty mile radius from you, and you can't use > summarization because only you, the delhi-lama and elvs could ever > understand it. > What does this have to do with the original question. > Why don't you just type up a spread sheet and paste it on the side of the > router, they will never know if the routes are summarized. > This is one of the most moronic discussions on this lists in a long time. > Why are they just having a problem with summarization, if they are so dumb. > Oh and technically speaking supernets and summarization are two different > things but I was hoping that delhi-lama elvis would knock ya off your high > horse. > I'll throw you a bone there biff, Not All Summarized routes are Supernets. > Call me at 3am when you figure it out. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "nrf" > To: > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 11:26 AM > Subject: Re: Just how important is route summarization in typical [7:14814] > > > > My biggest problem with summarization so far: > > > > > > Ring-Ring-Ring - my cellphone goes off at 3AM, I'm rudely awakened and > > blearily reach for it: > > > > "Hello?" - I say weakly > > "Hey boss, I'm on the office router, and I can't see all the routes!!!" > > "Well, that's probably because I summarized it, and you can only see the > > supernets" > > "Uhh, boss, what's summarization? What's a supernet?" > > > > > > That's my biggest problem with summarization right there, it requires a > > higher level of understanding than my guys have. I got a bunch of (very) > > junior guys who know how to get into the router, they know how to do "show > > ip route ", and they know how to ping, and that's pretty much about it as > > far as networks go. They don't know the intricacies of subnetting, > > supernetting, blah blah blah, I don't have time to teach them, and quite > > frankly I don't think they want to know anyway (they're just NT admins, > and > > that's what they want to spend their time doing). All they want, and > all > > I want for them, is to be able to go to any router, and look for all the > > routes in the network, that's all. > > > > > > I suppose the presumption was that only I, or other skilled network guys > > were taking care of this network, and this is not so. I hope everybody > > sees in this light why I have an objection of using it in my network. I > am > > not particularly inclined to do anything even a little bit complex because > I > > am not the one who is going to maintain it. Ultimately, it's a > > manageability thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > At 05:07 PM 8/2/2001 -0400, you wrote: > > > >Ah, but why stop at 3, why not 30 or 300 or 3000 disasters all at once? > > > >Reason being at some point it really is not cost-effective to try to > > > >engineer your systems to be even more safe, because the extra safety > > margin > > > >is not worth the massive amount of money you have to spend. > > > > > > > >So, goes to what I thought was my original question (but apparently it > > has > > > >been twisted around, so let me ask it again) - how large does your > > network > > > >have to grow before it really starts to benefit from summarization? As > > I'm > > > >sure we're all aware, summarization is not all good, there are some bad > > > >points to it - the biggest being that it is just simply harder to > > > >troubleshoot a summarized network (because I can't see all the routes > > from > > > >all my routers). > > > > > > > > > That puzzles me. I find summarization makes it easier to troubleshoot -- > > > binary search versus linear search, if you will. > > > > > > > > > > > > >By the way, I worked in the oil field for 9 years, and it's pretty > > > >dangerous. I've known people that died, and using systems that > certainly > > > >were not engineered to take 3 disasters at once. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >""Bill Pearch"" wrote in message > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Yes! > > > > > An oil field engineer summed it up this way: When designing > > something, > > > > > design it so three disasters have to happen at the same time before > > > >someone > > > > > gets killed. > > > > > I hate it when networks just happen. > > > > > > > > > > TTFN, > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:13 PM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: Just how important is route summarization in typical > > > > > [7:14700] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In our industry, we assume something is going to wrong and plan for > > it. > > > We > > > > > plan how to minimize the affects of a link going down. > > > > > > > > > > My $0.00000002 > > > > > > > > > > Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14841&t=14841 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
