> Additionally, the question arises that if, say, there are 200
> such interfaces on a given EDGE/ASBR, and one of them
> flaps...what is worse for the network? Producing a type-5
> as-external-LSA for a single link state change (which
> propogates throughout the network essentially unchanged) or
> producing a type-1 intra-area-LSA which the ABR(s) still have
> to analyze in order to find the (1) network out of the 200
> whose state has changed.
>
Oh... I bet you're frustrated. 4 e-mails later and the question hasn't
even been addressesd by anyone, let alone me. Well, I feel obligated to
attempt now that I understand what you're asking.
So, I imagine that it might vary depending on the implementation as I've
seen some ugly ones when it comes to not doing incrementals when they
could. If memory serves, neither option should require a full Dijkstra
at any router in the network since the flapping network is a stub.
However, I still think the latter is more beneficial since the former
has some, though possibly minor, impact on the *entire* network. The
impact of the latter can be limited to the local area as long as it's
being summarized at the abr. I've always been a fan of isolating the
visibility of any failure whenever possible. Plus the other benefits
just make it the cleanest solution in my mind.
In the many discussions I've had with developers in the past, analyzing
a router-lsa with lots of interfaces has never been mentioned to me as
an intensive process or just something to be concerned about in general.
Thanks,
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:40 EDT