This is a very dangerous advice. OSPF definitely has a lot more interesting failure modes than static routing. In other words, you advise students to economise on simple things (configuring networks) to get hit with complicated problems (fixing the broken networks) later on. Also, static routes do not generate any flap. A malfunctioning OSPF speaker can bring down the entire network. The real answer - do static routing whereever you have only a single path for packets to go thru. To eliminate mistakes, generate configuration automatically from master maps kept at network engineering computers. --vadim KISS - keep things as simple as possible... OSPF is an open protocol, and it's very simple in case if you have not 500 routers and 1000 flapping routes in the network - what do you searching the headache for? Multicast routing depends more from the options you have from the hardware vendor - choose the simplest and more standard method and turn it on... PS. From my lectures to the students, quote: --- The most complex routing method is STATIC - it's easy to implement (for the HW vendor) but most difficult to configure. The simplest routing is just dynamic routing in the plain schema (for example, 'router ospf 1/network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 - just 2 lines for the CISCO, compare to the static' - may be it can argue someone do not use the static at all -:)
I can't agree. OSPF have a lot of failure modes - in case of the complex configuration. In case of the plain network with a lot of the simple links and a very simple configuration - it have not visible disadvantages at all (except some slowness in case if network increase unlimitedly; and stability - but juts in this case). And you can't even image the number of mistakes the network admins can do in case of the static routing (and remember about the fine CISCO config when you should remove old config lines exactly).
The real answer - do static routing whereever you have only a single path for packets to go thru. To eliminate mistakes, generate configuration automatically from master maps kept at network engineering computers.
This case OSPF do the same thing - generate routes when it started up; and no doubt it do less mistales then the human person. No, the comparation between OSPF and STATIC looks like the comparation between the old (from 1950 year) and modern (Mersedess-600) cars - the first is very simple implemented and difficult to drive; the second is very complex implemented but very simple to drive (but if you are to be starving on the unhabitant ireland with the good roads, you'll choose the first car; but it seemd for me you just choose something more complex in the real life). Alex. PS. And if someone use STATIC widely, a few years ago some other person should be sitting for a few days and flame the first one digging through a heaps of the static routes /it's real example from my life/.
--vadim
KISS - keep things as simple as possible... OSPF is an open protocol, and it's very simple in case if you have not 500 routers and 1000 flapping routes in the network - what do you searching the headache for?
Multicast routing depends more from the options you have from the hardware vendor - choose the simplest and more standard method and turn it on...
PS. From my lectures to the students, quote: --- The most complex routing method is STATIC - it's easy to implement (for the HW vendor) but most difficult to configure.
The simplest routing is just dynamic routing in the plain schema (for example, 'router ospf 1/network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 - just 2 lines for the CISCO, compare to the static' - may be it can argue someone do not use the static at all -:)
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
participants (2)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
Vadim Antonov