are OSPF hello packets needed here?
I don’t see any need for our local router to be sending OSPF hello packets out of the Ethernet interface. There is no router connected to it, only a switch and a few workstations. Unless I am missing something, it seems like unnecessary bandwidth usage. Or are hello packets considered insignificant in terms of bandwidth usage?
In fact I don’t understand the need for OSPF to be configured at all. Can’t a default route be configured to the central office that, to the best of my knowledge, our network communications go through anyway?
In fact I don’t understand the need for OSPF to be configured at all. Can’t a default route be configured to the central office that, to the best of my knowledge, our network communications go through anyway?
Comments
-
networker050184
Mod Posts: 11,962 Mod
We would need more information to tell you if a routing protocol is needed in your situation.
As far as hellos being sent out on to the LAN you can just use a passive interface to stop them.An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made. -
briangl
Member Posts: 184 ■■■□□□□□□□
What additional information would you need?networker050184 wrote:We would need more information to tell you if a routing protocol is needed in your situation..
That's what I was thinking, but is it even worth any possible benefit?networker050184 wrote:As far as hellos being sent out on to the LAN you can just use a passive interface to stop them. -
GT-Rob
Member Posts: 1,090
OSPF packets are only sent out on the networks configured.
For example
router 1
int e01 ip add 10.0.0.1
int e02 ip add 192.168.0.1
router ospf 1
network 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
OSPF packets will NOT be sent out the e02 interface
As for a default route vs a dynamic route, sure. You can build an entire network with static routes if you want. -
networker050184
Mod Posts: 11,962 Mod
briangl wrote:
What additional information would you need?networker050184 wrote:We would need more information to tell you if a routing protocol is needed in your situation..
The network setup. Like GT-Rob stated you can build a whole network with static routes if you want but it will become a hassle to configure and maintain if it is a large deployment. You have to weigh the benefits and most of the time dynamic routing wins out with the ease of configuration.
If you are reaching over the internet and you only have a single connection then a static route would be sufficient. If you have multiple paths to a destination you will want the routing protocol to converge for you and to provide fail over and choice of optimal paths. It may not make sense when looking at the small picture, but if you look at the large picture you will better understand the need for routing information to be propagated through a network.briangl wrote:
That's what I was thinking, but is it even worth any possible benefit?networker050184 wrote:As far as hellos being sent out on to the LAN you can just use a passive interface to stop them.
You probably won't see a gain in performance if that is what you are asking. The hellos are most likely not causing any kind of performance issue especially on a LAN that usually runs at 100mbs or higher these days.
If you are not using authentication using a passive interface will keep a rouge device from forming a neighbor relationship where one is not wanted. It will also save a few CPU cycles on your router, but again probably not enough to recognize any kind of performance enhancement.An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made.