Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) Ascend Max 4004 & Series56 Digital Modem Remote Gateway Probs (fwd)
> PM RIP support is stellar - it is just RIPv1. Not doing RIPv2 is not the
> same has having problems. Livingston/Lucent deliberately skipped RIPv2 since
> it is inferior to OSPF, and they were working on, and then fielded a solid
> OSPF base. They had RIPv2 running, I know they guy who wrote it one
> afternoon as a warm up, they deliberately decided not to support it because
> it is so inferior to OSPF. And their OSPF is simple to use and reliable.
I heard some valid arguments recently against OSPF. Agreed that RIPv2 is
probably no better (or worse), though.
They were pushing EIGRP instead of OSPF (they were Cisco people). Obviously
EIGRP is not an option for anyone who hasn't got a 100% Cisco network.
The complaints against OSPF is that it forces you to have a network that is
structured with a backbone area having the required properties of the
OSPF backbone (zero) area, that is, every other area connects to it.
Because you can only summarize routes at area boundaries, you can't just
have a single area 0 and do away with the concept of areas if you wanted
to, for large networks.
I wonder if you think these are valid concerns regarding OSPF? I have
only limited experience with it.
-Phil
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
Follow-Ups:
References: