Re: OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question

["Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () Relcom EU net>]

Anyway, do you aggregate the customers to the single box, or do not, 2 
level hierarchy scheme (backbone + AREA for big nodes) is quite 
satisfacted.

Another problem - how do you flood small updates. For example, if we here 
allocate dial-up addresses from the central cache, amd I inject this host 
addresses into the network. Through, both methods (OSPF or IBGP) works 
fine for the middle-size dialup pop's, and I don't think you need to do 
it instead of using local address-pools in case of large dialup pop's.

Alex.


On Fri, 28 May 1999, Steve Meuse wrote:

> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 02:58:52 -0400
> From: Steve Meuse <smeuse () bbnplanet com>
> To: Vadim Antonov <avg () kotovnik com>
> 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

Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)