in the case of a hub and spoke network, where implementing summarization on the spokes (or rather, advertising of summaries out the interfaces of the hub) yields extra configuration work with no real benefit? in a "small" network, no matter what the topology, where the number of routes is minimal, again leading to a extra configuration work and no real benefit? in these two cases, even the "extra" work is not all that much. considering the time I used to spend tweaking, revising, and otherwise fooling around with my WAN addressing and encapsulation, it is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. in an operation where you have clueless low level NOC people who just don't get it, and repeatedly bother the network manager with midnight calls reporting they don't see all the routes they think they should be seeing? (which I believe was the genesis of this thread) where would you see a disadvantage? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael L. Williams Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 9:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Just how important is route summarization in typical [7:14953] "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > One compromise -- design your addressing plan hierarchically, > so if you do subsequently need to summarize, you don't need to > renumber. Is there any case when using hierarchical addressing where you *wouldn't* want to summarize. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to implement summarization everywhere possible, but is there are specific downside to summarizing everywhere you can? Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14964&t=14964 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
