Hi Mike, I ALWAYS use subinterfaces. They are much more flexible, and are not susceptible to issues physical interfaces have (such as inverse ARP and dynamic mappings). In the lab, of course you are bound to whatever the problem statement says, but in reality subinterfaces (even if there is just one DLCI) is much better. FWIW, without trying to show my age, I was always using subinterfaces. I did not even know that frame maps existed until I was starting to study for certification related stuff.
Short version - use subifs unless you must use something else. Cheers, Matt CCIE #22386 CCSI #31207 On 7 July 2010 17:02, Michael Lipsey <[email protected]> wrote: > I was doing a practice lab with a pretty simple frame-relay configuration > today, it caused me to go back and do a little review on Frame-relay and > ospf network types. Feels silly to go back over that stuff again at this > point but I spent an hour and half on it and feel better except for one > thing. > > The frame-relay on this little practice lab was simple setup, R2, R4 and R5 > with R2 as the hub between them. Specified to not change the ospf network > type (so it remains non-broadcast). > > > The solution implements subinterfaces on R4 and R5's serial interface. It > didn't really say to do that so I'm wondering what the logic might be that I > am missing this late night regarding if I should subinterface or not. > > Usually I subinterface if they tell me to (duh) or if there is some other > indication of multiple subnets on the same physical interface - then I will > subinterface. Otherwise - am I forgetting another fundamental reason in > frame-relay to do subinterfaces? > > Your thoughts are appreciated. > > -Mike > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
