Ascend Communications (ASND) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Ascend Communications (ASND)

ASND 220.42

+4.9%

Dec 12 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: polarisnh who wrote (22675)	12/1/1997 1:46:00 PM
From: Lerxst	of 61433

Hi Steven, Sorry for taking so long to get back to your response. I just now noticed SI's feature of pointing me to your message. I originally wrote: <<OSPF is not a Cisco proprietary protocol. Also, OSPF is not necessarily a replacement for RIP/RIP2, but rather is a more powerful routing protocol.. >> You then wrote: <I beg to differ with you that OSPF was not intended to a replacement for RIP.> Yes, I agree with you that OSPF was developed as the successor to RIP, as it's replacement. However, in my original note I was actually trying to convey that RIP doesn't necessarily need to be replaced by OSPF in all networks. My writing wasn't all that clear in that regard. There exist many networks for which RIP works just fine. I don't regularly configure or maintain networks, but I understand that by going with OSPF the administrative cost is higher than RIP in small networks. In large networks, OSPF is the way to go. Regards, Lerxst

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next