|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:13:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Daniel L. Golding" <dan@netrail.net> To: HANSEN CHAN <hchan@newbridge.com> Cc: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu> In-Reply-To: <38E512CE.94BAB47F@newbridge.com> Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.05L.10003311611280.28078-100000@cartman.netrail.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Disclaimer: This is a religious issue. This is also an issue that is non-operational and should be on PUCK... 200 routers seems excessive. 50 routers is much more reasonable. The important part is to limit external routes being redistributed into OSPF. External routes are bad mojo. Daniel Golding Senior Network Engineer NetRail, Inc. ----------------------- dan@netrail.net (404) 739-4346 On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, HANSEN CHAN wrote: > > Dear all, > > For the big ISP networks (tier 1 or 2) that happens to use OSPF, what is the typical > number of OSPF areas in the network? According to OSPF books, a typical area is > consisted of 200 routers. Are those guidelines ever followed in real ISP network > deployment? > > Any input is highly appreciated. > > Cheers, > Hansen > > > >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |