interesting question. came up in a customer meeting the other day as well.
IMHO, this gets down to design preference. I am of the school of thought that there needs be some way of getting to any router in a network ( design permitting, cost permitting ), and that each router in a network needs some unique and easily identified pneumonic. So IMHO, one should use loopbacks, numbered according to some rational scheme, and that those "routes" should be advertised.IMHO This should be true, no matter what routing protocol you are using. However, others will ask whether in a 5000 router domain, you want 5000 extra routes in your tables. That is a valid counterargument. Using the RID command under the OSPF process, you can set up a rational identification scheme. The RID does not necessarily have to be related to interface numbering. But then you have the issue of correlating RIDs to the addresses one actually uses to get to the router in question, making it a bit more complicated to find things when you need to. JMHO. Chuck ""john smith"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi, > Is there reason one would prefer loopback address for router ID when using > Ospf over the router id command that can be used under "router ospf " and > vice versa. Is there a need to advertise the router IDs in OSPF. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32025&t=32022 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
