nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGPs in use
From: Richard Irving <rirving () onecall net>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 19:27:46 -0500
Danny McPherson wrote:
it probably depends on what you mean by "large". If you mean "the 5 largest"
The use of ISIS shouldn't lead folks to believe that OSPF doesn't scale well though. -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..... Just a thought... or warning... :}
Current thread:
- Re: IGPs in use, (continued)
- Re: IGPs in use Jared Mauch (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Alex Bligh (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Tony Li (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Ben Black (Oct 12)
- Re: IGPs in use Chrisy Luke (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Paul G. Donner (Oct 13)
- BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Chrisy Luke (Oct 13)
- RE: IGPs in use Thom Youngblood (Oct 13)
- 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 Henk Smit (Oct 14)
- Message not available
- Re: IGPs in use Henk Smit (Oct 14)