OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question
danr at dbn.net
Fri May 28 06:57:08 UTC 1999
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Meuse [mailto:smeuse at bbnplanet.com]
> Sent: 28 May, 1999 1:59 AM
> To: Vadim Antonov
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question
> At 03:33 PM 05/27/1999 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> >Tony Li <tony1 at home.net> wrote:
> >>I suspect that the main driver is not the amount of routing
> >>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 :)
> 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?
More information about the NANOG