[c-nsp] OSPF area design question

[Tantsura, Jeff]

If you put every router in a different area all communication bitween
all the routers will go via area 0 -  is that what you are trying to
achive ?


With kind regards/ met vriendelijke groeten,
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Tantsura
CCIE #11416
Senior Consultant
Capgemini Nederland BV
Tel: +31(0)30 689 2866
Mob:+31(0)6 4588 6858
Fax: +31(0)30 689 6565
--------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dan Armstrong
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:42 PM
To: Marcel Lammerse; James Hampton
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OSPF area design question

We too have a similar situation.  We opted to make a whackload of OSPF
areas. 
I am very curious if this design is going to eat up some resource
unnecessarily.

I can't quite figure out why in a "real"  NSSA scenario that other
routers in the same area need to know anything about other routers in
the stub area, since the only path anywhere else is up to the
distribution layer anyway, which is handled with the default route that
gets advertised down...

Dan.



On Monday 30 August 2004 16:37, Marcel Lammerse wrote:
> Ok, if you have that area 1 with 15 routers. Would it be a good idea
> to keep them all in one area, or would it make sense to assign 15
> different area numbers and make each of them a separate area (NSSA in
> this case). Because, I figured, an update from one of the router will
> be flooded throughout the entire area which is totally unnecessary.
>
> I like to know whether the extra configuration and administrative
> overhead is worth saving on unnecessary update floods and cpu cycles
> processing them.
>
> On Aug 30, 2004, at 9:47 PM, James Hampton wrote:
> > The way I'm reading this is that you have three hub routers
> > connected like  points on a triangle, with each point having 15 or
> > so spokes? If this is the case I would make the top router(or the
> > one in the middle) area 0 and the others 1 and 2 or what ever
> > numbering scheme you come up with. Than address each area with
> > contiguous blocks so that you can summarize and keep the routing
> > table as small as possible. The spokes could be "stubby" sense they
have only one way out.
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:54:35 +0200 (CEST), Marcel Lammerse
> >
> > <lammerse at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a hub-and-spoke network, for which I'd like to use OSPF as a

> >> routing protocol. The spoke sites will advertise their networks to
> >> the hub and receive a default route from the hub.
> >>
> >> A common piece of advice in OSPF design literature, is to use
> >> different area numbers to prevent unnecessary LSA updates from
> >> flooding to routers that don't need the updates and to avoid the
> >> cpu processing overhead.
> >>
> >> The total network has some 50 routers.  There are 3 inter-connected

> >> hubs and some 15 routers per hub. The way I see it, I can do two
> >> things:
> >>
> >> 1.      assign a lot of area numbers to prevent the LSAs from
> >> propagating
> >>        through to routers that don't need them. However, this leads

> >> to a
> >>        relatively complex configuration.
> >>
> >> 2.      accept the, potentially small, bandwidth waste and don't
care
> >>        about the cpu overhead (we're talking 2600XMs here).
> >>
> >> Option 1 just doesn't seem worth it. Could someone provide some
> >> advice, experience or tips?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> -Marcel
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
> ---
> "..the price to pay for teenage sex is pretty high-- unwanted
> pregnancy, disease, and ending up with one ear bigger than the rest
> because it's always cocked toward the door in case the parents come
> home early."
>
- Michael Moore
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


Our name has changed.  Please update your address book to the following format: "recipient at capgemini.com".

This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate,  distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this  message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all  copies of this message.