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)