nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGPs in use
From: Danny McPherson <danny () genuity net>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:48:35 -0700
Just as with ISIS .. and most anything else. In order to continue operating when it's "ceiling" is reached, network design and vendor implementation must be tailored (optimized) to accommodate shortcomings in the specific application. I've seen one of these "theoretical" ceilings w/ISIS at a previous employer (one of the "big 5"). I guess you could say "allowing the glass to break wasn't an option". -danny
Perhaps I'm forgetting something... Doesn't OSPF have a "glass ceiling".. Kind of like the current mboned issue's ? Routes, * states, * interfaces | macs, * changes...... != scalable... Perhaps I am wrong..... Anyone care to clarify ? Or, should we limit our scope of the term "scalable"... In which case, OSPF is dynamite.
Current thread:
- Re: IGPs in use, (continued)
- Re: IGPs in use Danny McPherson (Oct 12)
- Re: IGPs in use bmanning (Oct 12)
- Re: IGPs in use Richard Irving (Oct 12)
- Re: IGPs in use Paul Ferguson (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Howard C. Berkowitz (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Tony Li (Oct 13)
- Scaling Existing IGP Administration (was) Re: IGPs in use Howard C. Berkowitz (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Danny McPherson (Oct 12)
- Re: IGPs in use Henk Smit (Oct 14)
- Message not available
- Re: IGPs in use Henk Smit (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use I Am Not An Isp (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Paul G. Donner (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Forrest W. Christian (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use bmanning (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Jerry Scharf (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Tony Li (Oct 14)