From: Sam Munzani (sam@munzani.com)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 12:19:45 GMT-3
For a large scale hub-spoke network, using ODR is more efficient than OSPF. Only the condition is, it works on Point to Point connections only not point to multipoint.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1824/prod_bulletin09186a0080091d04.html
ODR rides CDP.
Sam Munzani
CCIE # 6479 (R&S, Security)
> First, Thanks everyone for your valuable input. Unfortunately, the Service
> Provider I work for allows SE's to order hardware before I see requirements,
> that is why no true redundancy exist in this network. I have decided to
> create regional totally stubby areas and re-design IP scheme. My main
> concerns were the 400 LSA databases and large routing table at host, this
> design addresses these issues.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Albert Lu [mailto:albert_lu@optushome.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:53 AM
> To: 'Aaron Woody'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: OSPF for 400+ Locations
>
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> So what have you decided for your design, I'm interested to know.
>
> 400 subinterfaces, thats one big config file =)
>
> Albert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Aaron Woody
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:41 PM
> To: Aaron Woody; Michael Snyder
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: OSPF for 400+ Locations
>
>
> Thanks everyone! I think I have a game plan now. I feel more confident about
> implementing OSPF in this scenario.
>
> Thanks Again!
>
> Aaron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Aaron Woody
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:06 PM
> To: Michael Snyder
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: OSPF for 400+ Locations
>
>
> I am with you! I really want to do EIGRP but client is running Microsoft ISA
> Server with OSPF routing. I know...I have to address that too. He also has
> roughly 16 remotes already running OSPF on routers provider by another
> provider other than me. The IP scheme is a mess too. If I blindly configured
> OSPF I would have over 800 routes and 400 LSA databases at host. I am using
> frame-relay point-to-point sub-interfaces, how would I assign different
> remotes the same area without partitioning? If I purposely partitioned the
> remote areas; is that just really bad design? I am just trying to find
> someway to make this work and scale.
>
> Thanks!
> Aaron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Snyder [mailto:msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:52 PM
> To: 'Aaron Woody'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: OSPF for 400+ Locations
>
>
> If it's a bunch of small branch offices tied to a central office, and
> every branch office is defaulted back to the central office which ties
> into a 3745.
>
> Well, how about an OSPF area for each region? If you do ten sites to a
> region, that's only 40 areas. Instead of totally stubby, how about just
> stubby. I don't think in modern networks you have to worry too much
> about lsa's filling the pipes.
>
> I don't have any real world experience with 400 sites of OSPF, but my
> common sense would say, keep it simple.
>
> BTW, Eigrp wouldn't even break a sweat over 400 sites. You could place
> all offices into one eigrp as, turn off auto summary, and go get an
> early lunch.
>
> Are you doing the ip addressing of the sites at the same time?
>
> Good time to take care of poor ip address planning is BEFORE you start
> routing them.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Aaron Woody
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 5:21 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: OSPF for 400+ Locations
>
> I have experience with OSPF but I am looking for suggestions on how to
> implement OSPF in a Frame-Relay Hub/Spoke topology for 400+ locations.
> Each
> location only needs to know about the host through a default. My first
> idea
> is to have a separate area for each location and make it a totally
> stubby
> area. Is there a better way. My concern is that there will be 400+ areas
> in
> the OSPF Database at the host. The host will be a Cisco 3745. The
> remotes
> will all be Cisco 1751.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Aaron
>
> [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type application/ms-tnef which
> had a name of winmail.dat]
> .
> .
> .
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:19 GMT-3