Gab:
Plus of running a routing protocol vs a static for NMM? I think Steve had
the right idea. NMM should not care about the routing as long as the tables
are correct with either static or other linkstate protocol. The plus for
running static vs ospf/eigrp/bgp/isis is the ability for the network to self
heal. NMM's job is create the network topology through either autodiscovery
or manual implementation (depending on the size of the network either can be
good) and to catch, then report the failure(s) by using the router trap/log
messages.
The benefit for the business is less time for recovery of failures, faster
convergence and timed convergence (one can prevent flapping of traffic by
using hold down timers. Static will not work this way with out some work),
faster installation of new edge networks, and easy or auto of management for
network discovery through dynamic routing protocols. Statics do require
hands on configuration for downstream and upstream routers. This includes
the configuring of default routes for the edge and network statements for
the upstream to know about downstream networks. Since hands one is required
in two places errors are more prone to happen and more time is needed to
bring up new sites or change old sites.
If this network is very simple: no redundancy, hub and spoke design, and
very few nodes. It can be a tough sell to migrate to ospf. It's a case by
case analysis.
Time = Money. NMM is the ability to find errors faster and to track
problems when they do happen. Adding routing protocols simplifies (but does
add complexity and knowledge gaps for those not familiar with routing
protocols) installation and speeds up recovery. Again this depends on the
network topology if it is simple then there may be no real benefit, but if
there is redundancy involved the case can be built.
Hope this helps.
Just my 2 cents.
==DMT>
==========================
Douglas M. Todd, Jr.
CCNA, CCNP, CIT
Senior Network Enginner
MGH Network Engineering - EAST
Partners Health Care
Charlestown, MA 02129
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Francis [mailto:steve@expertcity.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:54 AM
> To: gab jones
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [nsp] OSPF and network management
>
>
> How about the ability to still manage the network in the event of a
> circuit/router/switch failure?
> That's always seemed useful to me.
>
>
> gab jones wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are currently in the process of migrating a customer's
> network from
> > a static environment to using a dynamic protocol(ospf). We
> have had to
> > write a business orientated report on how running a dynamic
> protocol
> > would benefit the business. As far as routing is concerned
> the reasons
> > are quite clear. The company have openview NNM and would
> like to know
> > how going dynamic would benefit in regards to the network
> management
> > system. I have thought about this but I cant seem to find
> any words to
> > explain how it would benefit in regards to a network management
> > prospective business wise.
> > Any input will be invaluable.
> >
> > regards,
> > gab
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list real_name)s@puck.nether.net
> > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list real_name)s@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>