Search

That depends on their configurations. For example: While it makes very good sense to include redundant physical links in a network, connecting switches in loops, without taking the appropriate measures, will cause havoc on a network. Without the correct measures, a switch floods broadcast frames out all of its ports, causing serious problems for the network devices. The main problem is a broadcast storm where broadcast frames are flooded through every switch until all available bandwidth is used and all network devices have more inbound frames than they can process.

Now that we are moving towards IPv6, the logical move would be to also run OSPF for that protocol suite, which makes sense and reduces the learning curve for implementation and support. But, that would mean that you have to run two OSPF processes — one for IPv4 unicast and one for IPv6 unicast. That means two sets of policies have to be applied, including security for OSPF itself. Running OSPFv3 for both IPv4 and IPv6 reduces the number routing protocols and the configuration that goes with that. It makes it easier to implement policy in a consistent way for both protocol suites.

Despite an organization's efforts to prevent downtime and avoid compromises, failures will still happen from time to time. How do you plan for failures?