| geomax 2003-12-22, 8:25 pm |
| Thanks for the feedback, Charles!
"Charles M. Kozierok" <ixlu@PCGuide.com> wrote in message
news:bs75ml$10t$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <rJjFb.7182$xh2.1338@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,
> geomax <gw091@yahoo.com> wrote:
> } This may sound like a dumb question, but with Split Horizon, even though
> } they can't *advertise* back to the router from which it initially
learned of
> } a route, they still added the route to their routing table, so RB can
still
> } route traffic to N1 via RA, right??
>
> Correct. It only impacts the advertising of route information.
>
> } Split Horizon/Poison Reverse are all about ellimianting false
advertising -
> } but don't change the way the routers actually route traffic, right?
>
> Right.
>
> } Poison Reverse? In this case, since RA is told it can't get to N1 via
RB, it
> } has to find another way? I'm assuming then, given your example, that
there
> } would have to be other routers/routes that RA can send traffic to to get
to
> } N1?
>
> In that simplified example, there would be no way for anyone to reach N1
> until the link between N1 and RA was repaired.
>
> } Is it a safe assumption to say that you would use Split Horizon in a
small
> } network, and Poison Reverse in a more complex meshed environment?
>
> I am not really sure about this. Poison reverse is just a "safer"
> version of split horizon and I believe it is widely used on
> internetworks of varying size.
>
> peace,
>
> -*-
> charles
|