[c-nsp] OSPF areas?

[Tim Durack]

In our Campus/Enterprise environment we run multiple areas (original
thinking was to control updates for slower less reliable WAN links.)

Not convinced multiple areas do anything for us aside from complicate things.
Plus I have run into the situation where an intra-area route is
preferred by OSPF even though an inter-area route might actually be
better.

If I were doing it again I would seriously consider running OSPF for
infrastructure, and iBGP for the "Customer Edge." I like the idea of
separating out the edge from the core routing wise. This would provide
a lot of control over policy. But perhaps that would be
overengineering too.

Tim:>

On 3/23/06, sthaug at nethelp.no <sthaug at nethelp.no> wrote:
> > Are you building a service provider network or an enterprise/campus
> > network?
> >
> > For all networks with fully deployed BGP (SP networks), it is
> > recommended that you only have loopbacks in IGP, and all customer
> > routes in iBGP. If this is the case, then only a single area is
> > required.
>
> Also, in a service provider environment, you are more likely to want
> MPLS TE, which is easier to handle with a single area.
>
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>