|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: OSPF multi-level hierarchy: Necessary at all?
The main purpose of doing hierarchical IGP (OSPF or ISIS), in my view,
is to scale IGP routing and achieve fault isolation in large scaled
networks. Most of the large networks exit today (especially those using
IS-IS as IGP) are still having one flat IGP routing area since IS-IS simply
does not have adequate 2-level support. The protocol issues are being
addressed in the IETF. I can see a move to 2-level hierarchy in the near
future but do not see more than 2 levels would be needed soon. In addition,
some large ISPs are moving away from ATM overlay model to MPLS, this will
reduce IS-IS/OSPF adjacency greatly (no more full mesh topology from IGP's
point of view) thus alleviate IGP scaling issue. Further, the complexity
of protocol and operation management will increase with the number of
levels added to the hierarchy. In sum, the use of more than 2-level
of IGP hierarchy is less likely, at least not in the near future.
The following Internet-draft include some discussions of the topic in
discussing routing scaling issues in general.
Title : Scalable Routing Design Principles
Author(s) : J. Yu
Filename : draft-yu-routing-scaling-00.txt
Pages : 24
Date : 15-Apr-99
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yu-routing-scaling-00.txt
--Jessica
- ------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: [email protected]
Received: from mail.nyp.ans.net (mail.nyp.ans.net [147.225.190.25])
by cannes.aa.ans.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA08768
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:40:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41])
by mail.nyp.ans.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA29164;
Thu, 27 May 1999 11:40:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix)
id 7BB1044439; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56)
id 5371344445; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from amtsun.amt.ru (amtsun.amt.ru [212.111.64.19])
by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881D144439
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:38:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zinin (amtsun.amt.ru [212.111.64.19]) by amtsun.amt.ru (8.8.8/8.7.3.1) with SMTP id TAA14815 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 27 May 1999 19:38:21 +0400 (MSD)
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 19:36:13 +0400
To: [email protected]
From: Alex Zinin <[email protected]>
Subject: OSPF multi-level hierarchy: Necessary at all?
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: [email protected]
X-Loop: nanog
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 764
Hello,
We're currently discussing necessity of multi-level hierarchy
in OSPF on the WG mail list.
The idea is to implement SPF-based interarea routing
with more than two levels of topology abstraction and
route aggregation (we have two levels in OSPF at the
moment level1 being intra-area routing and level2 being
the inter-area one).
I have some thoughts on how this could be done,
but the main question is whether there is a demand
for it or not.
Everyone is really welcome to share opinions.
Thanks in advance,
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex D. Zinin, Consultant
CCSI #98966
CCIE #4015
AMT Group / ISL
Cisco Systems Gold Certified Partner
http://www.amt.ru
irc: //EFNET/#cisco, //irc.msn.com/#NetCisco [Ustas]
- ------- End of Forwarded Message
------- End of Forwarded Message
|