Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

Maximum devices in OSPF area 0

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

sergevautour at yahoo

Oct 19, 2009, 8:39 AM

Post #1 of 6 (472 views)
Permalink

Maximum devices in OSPF area 0

Hello,

We are looking to deploy a greenfield MPLS network with OSPF as the IGP. I'm told OSPF areas don't play well with OSPF TED. For this reason, we are looking at using only area 0. Only Loopback interfaces and p-p core ethernet links will be in OSPF. What are the maximum number of Routers & Links that folks would be comfortable with putting in 1 area? If folks are already using this type of approach, could you share your current numbers?

Thanks,
Serge

__________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

ras at e-gerbil

Oct 19, 2009, 8:46 AM

Post #2 of 6 (450 views)
Permalink

Re: Maximum devices in OSPF area 0 [In reply to]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 08:39:40AM -0700, Serge Vautour wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are looking to deploy a greenfield MPLS network with OSPF as the
> IGP. I'm told OSPF areas don't play well with OSPF TED. For this
> reason, we are looking at?using only area 0.?Only Loopback interfaces
> and p-p core?ethernet links will be in?OSPF.?What are the maximum
> number of Routers & Links that folks would be comfortable with putting
> in 1 area??If folks are already using this type of approach, could you
> share your current numbers?

If you aren't abusing your IGP with hundreds of thousands of routes, or
running some massive network with thousands of nodes on the edge, there
is no reason you can't (and shouldn't) run with a single area. IMHO
areas should be the anti-default, "if you has to ask, the answer is no".
The scenarios you see with lots of areas in books and labs are for
educational and testing purposes, not for sensible network design. :)

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras [at] e-gerbil> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

sfouant at gmail

Oct 19, 2009, 8:46 AM

Post #3 of 6 (452 views)
Permalink

Re: Maximum devices in OSPF area 0 [In reply to]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Serge Vautour <sergevautour [at] yahoo>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> We are looking to deploy a greenfield MPLS network with OSPF as the IGP.
> I'm told OSPF areas don't play well with OSPF TED.

Yep, OSPF-TE uses Type 10 LSAs, which only has an area flooding scope.

> For this reason, we are looking at using only area 0. Only Loopback
> interfaces and p-p core ethernet links will be in OSPF. What are the maximum
> number of Routers & Links that folks would be comfortable with putting in 1
> area? If folks are already using this type of approach, could you share your
> current numbers?
>
I've seen single areas with as many as ~600 routers and as many as 6-7k LSAs
in the LSDB that functioned without any problems.

--
Stefan Fouant

morrowc.lists at gmail

Oct 19, 2009, 8:52 AM

Post #4 of 6 (451 views)
Permalink

Re: Maximum devices in OSPF area 0 [In reply to]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Serge Vautour <sergevautour [at] yahoo> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are looking to deploy a greenfield MPLS network with OSPF as the IGP. I'm told
> OSPF areas don't play well with OSPF TED. For this reason, we are looking at using

you said .. greenfield.. why use OSPF?

> only area 0. Only Loopback interfaces and p-p core ethernet links will be
> in OSPF. What are the maximum number of Routers & Links that folks would be
> comfortable with putting in 1 area? If folks are already using this type of approach,
> could you share your current numbers?
>
> Thanks,
> Serge
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
>
>

sthaug at nethelp

Oct 19, 2009, 9:27 AM

Post #5 of 6 (451 views)
Permalink

Re: Maximum devices in OSPF area 0 [In reply to]

> > We are looking to deploy a greenfield MPLS network with OSPF as the IGP. I'm told
> > OSPF areas don't play well with OSPF TED. For this reason, we are looking at using
>
> you said .. greenfield.. why use OSPF?

I was thinking the same. If you run OSPF and want IPv6 some time in
the future you'll need to run OSPFv3 in addition. Much simpler to just
run IS-IS from day 1 and be done.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug [at] nethelp

mpetach at netflight

Oct 19, 2009, 6:46 PM

Post #6 of 6 (450 views)
Permalink

Re: Maximum devices in OSPF area 0 [In reply to]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists [at] gmail
> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Serge Vautour <sergevautour [at] yahoo>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are looking to deploy a greenfield MPLS network with OSPF as the IGP.
> I'm told
> > OSPF areas don't play well with OSPF TED. For this reason, we are looking
> at using
>
> you said .. greenfield.. why use OSPF?
>
>
Yet another vote in favour of doing IS-IS if you're going to do a greenfield
build;
it'll make your IPv6 native rollout go *so* much more smoothly (and you
*are*
planning for IPv6 now, since it's a greenfield rollout, right?

Matt

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads