[24188] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Rabb)
Fri May 28 03:08:25 1999
From: Dan Rabb <danr@dbn.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 01:57:08 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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:smeuse@bbnplanet.com]
> Sent: 28 May, 1999 1:59 AM
> To: Vadim Antonov
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: OSPF multi-level hierarch: side question
>
>
>
> At 03:33 PM 05/27/1999 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> >
> >Tony Li <tony1@home.net> 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
>
>
>
