From: Chuck Church (ccie8776@rochester.rr.com)
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 15:47:58 GMT-3
That's exactly what I had in mind. Never heard it called the 'hammock
topology' though. You should copyright that one. I like it!
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 11:45 AM
Subject: FW: OSPF for 400+ Locations
> I like hammock design for these things.
>
>
> --(site 1)--
> / \
> ---(site 2)---
> / \
> (East Coast NOC)----(Site 3)-----(West Coast NOC)
> \ /
> ---(Site 4)--/
> \ /
> -(Site 5)-
>
> Each site has two frame-relay pvc's, one going to each NOC.
>
> Not necessary to have high cir's on both site pvcs thought. Use ospf
> delay to select the primary pvc for each office. The backup pvc can
> have zero cir.
>
> The NOC's have a fat pipe between them.
>
> It would be hard to knock down such a redundant design.
>
> BTW, the fat pipe between nocs and the main router loopbacks are
> assigned to area 0 if you are using ospf.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Chuck Church
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 7:37 PM
> To: Aaron Woody; mohammed@sulafsolutions.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: OSPF for 400+ Locations
>
> Aaron,
>
> With as large as this is getting, you really want to do this right
> from
> the start. Has the company given any thought to disaster recovery?
> With a
> thousand remote sites, this can't be a small company, so a circuit loss
> at
> the main site could be horrific. Backup PVCs to another location are
> the
> norm for a network of this size. But it's nothing that OSPF can't
> handle.
> Just design it right, and maybe you'll get a big bonus for a good job!
>
> Chuck Church
> CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron Woody" <awoody@columbus.rr.com>
> To: <mohammed@sulafsolutions.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:50 PM
> Subject: RE: OSPF for 400+ Locations
>
>
> > I just found out today they will be growing to 1000 sites and I will
> still
> > have to design dial backup solution.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mohammed Al-zubi [mailto:mohammed@sulafsolutions.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:40 AM
> > To: 'Aaron Woody'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: OSPF for 400+ Locations
> >
> >
> > Aaron,
> > I've seen similar configurations, specially at banks (ATMs running
> FR/OSPF).
> > to be honest, if there are no networks behind the spoke routers (I
> think
> > there are none because you were going to configure them as Totally
> stubby)
> I
> > would just implement static routes, you would just have to put a
> default
> at
> > the remote sites, and 400 statics at the hub, its MUCH less work and
> > headache, and this way when you roll it out you have less
> configuration to
> > deal with. If you still need these routes to appear in the OSPF
> domain
> > beyond the hub, then redistribute it back to OSPF at the hub with a
> summary
> > address, so 400 networks would show up in your site routing table as
> one
> > route, and you just simplified the configuration of 400 sites.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mohammed
> >
> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> > Mohammed Al-Zubi
> > VP Professional Services
> > 24 Werner Ave. #21
> > Daly City, CA 94014
> > Tel: (650) 438-6384
> > Fax: (720) 293-4897
> > Email: mohammed@sulafsolutions.com
> > Web: www.sulafsolutions.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Aaron Woody
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:21 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 - 11:06:31 GMT-3