>howard wrote > >>. I have several presentations on this at >>www.nanog.org and www.arin.net, as well as in my books. > > >howard i had a quick look around both sites and couldnt find them ... > >please can you post the earl sorry URL
NANOG 1998: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/berk/index.htm ARIN 1999: http://www.arin.net/minutes/tutorial/index.htm _Designing Addressing Architectures for Routing and Switching_ (Macmillan, 1998) _Designing Routing & Switching for Enterprise Networks_ (Macmillan, 1999) _WAN Survival Guide_ (Wiley, 2000) > >thanks > >steve > >>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" >>Reply-To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: How would you design a Network ? [7:32067] wrap up... [7:32174] >>Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:12:50 -0500 >> >>>thanks for the good feedback from the list and madman, chuck, howard, and >>>steve. I admit the static routes work efficiently, and they do the load >>>balancing as required. It just seems a bit uncool to be all static , that's >>>all. >> >>Seriously, Jason, my experience in building lots of big networks says >>proper static routes (with all the bells and whistles such as >>different administrative distances, load balancing, and aggregation) >>are very cool. >> >>Relatively early in my Cisco routing experience, I was chatting with >>Tony Li, who was then the lead routing code designer for Cisco. He >>made the idle comment that he judged a good network design as one >>that had more, not less, static routes -- and you're talking here >>about the coauthor of the BGP standard. >> >>I particularly remember one large enterprise redesign where I was the >>architectural consultant. They had 2500 routers, mostly talking IGRP >>but a few from a non-Cisco vendor speaking RIP or OSPF. The overall >>goal was to move to OSPF. >> >>On detailed investigation, only 400 of the 2500 routers had any real >>alternative connectivity, where dynamic routing would have helped. >>The rest only had a single link to a distribution router, or perhaps >>a single dedicated link with a dial backup. Static/default serves >>just fine in those cases. >> >>One of the things that makes the use of statics easier is to remember >>that when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything tends to >>look like a nail. If one only looks at the routers proper as the >>networking tools, dynamic routing tends to look more attractive. >> >>But when you consider that you need to do IP address assignment, you >>are going to have at least a spreadsheet somewhere. It's not hard to >>have that assignment process automatically generate your static >>routes and DNS commands. I have several presentations on this at >>www.nanog.org and www.arin.net, as well as in my books. >> >>>If we go any direction it will probably be with eigrp, I like the idea >>>of the WAN update controls inherent when forced to carrying IPX/SPX to some >>>sites from the core. i could have done without the archive crack from >>>patrick. ;-) >>> >>> >>> >>>jason >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 05:25 PM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Re: How would you design a Network ? [7:32067] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>why do you think you need to change? seriously? what would dynamic routing >>> >>>give you that you don't have now - in terms of stability and the like? >>> >>> >>> >>>it might seem an odd thing to say, but I believe that dynamic routing in >>> >>>small environments, and maybe even in some larger environments, is over >>> >>>rated, no matter whose routers or what routing protocols you use. >>> >>> >>> >>>BTW, I am personally acquainted with a portion of the network of a very >>> >>>large technology company that consists entirely of static routes. Over 3000 >>> >>>of them. They had a particular good reason for doing it this way. But my >>> >>>point is that there are considerations other than "because you can" or >>> >>>"because you want to" >>> >>> >>> >>>Chuck >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>""Bullock, Jason"" wrote in message >>> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > >>>> Listers. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I would like to make some routing changes to a mostly static routing >>> >>>> environment. Currently everything is either routed via default gateway, >>> >>>or >>> >>>> static route statements. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> the environment consists of about 30 remote point to point WAN sites, >>with >>> >>>> most data traffic consisting of IP. We have several sites on dual T1's, >>> >>>and >>> >>>> all sites are terminating at a central corporate location. So a big star >>> >>>> network. The vendor of choice is cisco for routing and switching. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Anyone see OSPF, EIGRP, BGP, IGRP, ISIS as the way to go? I would like >>> >>>to >>> >>>> make this network more dynamic, just having a hard time justifying the >>> >>>move. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> All thoughts appreciated! >>> >>>> >>> >>>> thanks, >>> >>>> Jason >_________________________________________________________________ >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32191&t=32191 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
