|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question
Routers will inevitably fail. The question becomes how much exposure do you want when it does? Placing large amounts of customers on a single box is more economical, and is long as you have an uplink to your network with enough bandwidth to support them it's not a problem, but how many customers do you want down when a single router fails? This is obviously more of a political question that an operational one. Dan Rabb > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Meuse [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 28 May, 1999 1:59 AM > To: Vadim Antonov > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question > > > > At 03:33 PM 05/27/1999 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote: > > > >Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>I suspect that the main driver is not the amount of routing > information > >>in the gross sense, but the scalability of the protocol as > the number of > >>nodes increases. > > > >There's a better solution: decrease the number of nodes by replacing > >clusters with bigger boxes. This has an additional > advantage of reducing > >number of hops (and, consequently, latency variance). > > > >K.I.S.S. rulez :) > > > >--vadim > > Side question: > > At what point do we stop aggregating customers onto a single box? The > technology exists now to have hundreds if not thousands of > customers on a > signle box, but, Do we want that many? > > -Steve > > > |