[c-nsp] OSPF design

[Mack O'Brian]

So what is main reason of carrying MPLS all the way into your access-layer?



On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Robert Crowe (rocrowe)
<rocrowe at cisco.com>wrote:

> You can summarize at ABR's, just don't summarize your main
> Loopback/LDP-ID/BGP-ID range.
>
> Robert Crowe
> Email: rocrowe at cisco.com
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rin
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 8:25 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] OSPF design
>
> Hi group,
>
>
>
> We need to design a MPLS network that has around 100 nodes (7600)
> divided into Core, Aggregation & Access layer. OSPF and MPLS is deployed
> up to access layer. According to Cisco, an OSPF area should have no more
> than 50 nodes in order to minimize the database. With that concept, we
> should design our network into different areas, say Core & Aggregation
> in Area 0, Access nodes in area 1. However, I reckon separating the
> network into different OSPF areas without summarization at ABR cannot
> minimize OSPF database, all routers still receive routes advertises by
> other routers. If we do summarization at ABR, MPLS cannot work since
> this is a continuous MPLS domain.
>
>
>
> So my question is should we separate the network into different OSPF
> areas as Cisco recommendation or should we keep all routers in an OSPF
> area 0?
> Note that we intend to provide MPLS L2VPN, L3VPN on this network; we can
> only use OSPF, ISIS is not an option.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>