Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048

To: Bennie Warren <bennie@lemoorenet.com>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
From: Joe Shaw <jshaw@insync.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:23:46 -0600 (CST)
cc: Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET>, ascend-users@bungi.com
In-Reply-To: <1320783020-10932767@lemoorenet.com>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

If all your routes are staticly assigned, then there's no reason.  But if
you're using OSPF or RIP, pool summary makes your routing tables shrink
considerably (see my previous message).

Regards,
Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
Fortue: 43rd Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr
	fortune: Segmentation violation -- Core dumped

On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Bennie Warren wrote:

> This is true. I haven't been using pool summary. Is there any advantages 
> when using a router to direct traffic?
> 
> Bennie

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048

From: Bennie Warren <bennie@lemoorenet.com>

Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) IP Addresses needed for 4048
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread