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=14814&t=14814 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
