RE: OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question

[Dan Rabb <danr () dbn net>]

Routers will inevitably fail.  The question becomes how much exposure do you
want when it does?  Placing large amounts of customers on a single box is
more economical, and is long as you have an uplink to your network with
enough bandwidth to support them it's not a problem, but how many customers
do you want down when a single router fails?  This is obviously more of a
political question that an operational one.

Dan Rabb


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Meuse [mailto:smeuse () bbnplanet com]
> Sent: 28 May, 1999 1:59 AM
> To: Vadim Antonov
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question
>
>
>
> At 03:33 PM 05/27/1999 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> > Tony Li <tony1 () home net> wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect that the main driver is not the amount of routing 
> information
> > > in the gross sense, but the scalability of the protocol as 
> the number of
> > > nodes increases.
> >
> > There's a better solution: decrease the number of nodes by replacing
> > clusters with bigger boxes.  This has an additional 
> advantage of reducing
> > number of hops (and, consequently, latency variance).
> >
> > K.I.S.S. rulez :)
> >
> > --vadim
>
> Side question:
>
> At what point do we stop aggregating customers onto a single box? The
> technology exists now to have hundreds if not thousands of 
> customers on a
> signle box, but, Do we want that many?
>
> -Steve