OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question

Dan Rabb 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.

Dan Rabb

> -----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 
> 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

More information about the NANOG mailing list