[c-nsp] OSPF scalability

[Kristian Larsson]

Yes, but do you need filters in this scenario?
Summarizing is always good but imho it just
creates a more complex setup than necessary in
this particular case.

Keep those 7301s in one area and let the routes
flow freely :)

/Kristian
> Hi,
> 
> Unless you are doing TE, hierarchical OSPF is GOOD.
> The only way to filter in link state protocols is by using different areas
> The only way to summarise in link state protocols is by using different
> areas.
> 
> --
> Jeff Tantsura  CCIE# 11416
> Senior IP Network Engineer
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andris Zarins [mailto:andris.zarins at microlink.lv] 
> Sent: 06 September 2005 13:19
> To: Kristofer Sigurdsson
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] OSPF scalability
> 
> Hi,
> 
> OSPF works finw with several thousand routes, that's not a problem. 
> 
> One thing that I definately recommend is NOT to split network in several
> OSPF areas. There are no winnings if you do that. None at all. Only
> thing you get is more complex configuration and more chances to run into
> some trouble. Areas would be recommended if you have 250+ routers, just
> to scale network and maybe ease administration, or for example if you
> have some stub segments. If all areas should have all routes, and there
> are only some routers in each of them - stay with one area.  
> 
> Also I wouldn't recomment iBGP as IGP, just because it's a bit slow.
> Yea, of course it gives you more granular control of routing information
> and lots of other nice features, and of course you can tune timers to
> make it faster, but I'd stay with OSPF as IGP, especially - if user
> sessions are dynamic and routing info changes almose every second ;) .. 
> 
> Hope this helps, 
> Andris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Kristofer
> Sigurdsson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 1:18 PM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] OSPF scalability
> 
> Hello,
> 
> We are about to implement a broadband aggregation "stack",
> built from a few 7301's.  The idea is that each of the 7301's
> will have "outside" connectivity (despite the wording; no NAT 
> involved :-)) and announce via OSPF and iBGP the whole IP range
> for our broadband customers.  The boxes will then exchange host
> routes (connected routes) internally so that even if the "wrong"
> box gets a packet for a customer initially, it delivers it to
> the right one.
> 
> We were planning on using OSPF to exchange the connected host routes
> between the 7301 boxes.  I was, however, wondering about it's 
> scalability.  Can I realistically expect OSPF to be happy with several
> thousand routes, each mapped to a seperate interface (does every 
> interface, including the virtual-access interfaces, have to go into the
> link state database in every box?).  If not, I guess my best option 
> would be iBGP between the boxes?
> 
> We were planning to implement this using different OSPF areas, any ideas
> on that would be welcomed.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Kristofer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/