On Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:55:11 AM Peter Rathlev wrote: > We only have one area and should actually be using L2 > only. We hadn't thought it through when we decided on L1 > many years ago. I'm thinking that L1 only or L2 only is > better than L1+L2 everywhere and the only practical > drawback of using L1 seems to be the inability to inject > a default route. Any other gotchas we should be worrying > about?
L1-only requires that the Area ID of the NET be the same, otherwise adjacencies won't form. L2-only doesn't have this issue, although operationally, you might want to come up with some kind of protocol for how Area ID's in the NET are assigned. That said, RSVP-TE has inter-area issues, which can complicate features that require it to run, e.g., NG-MVPN, MPLS-TE, e.t.c. So sticking with a single level is probably a good idea. IS-IS scales well, anyway, and even though there might be added noise by going with one level, the benefits compensate for that. Perhaps, in the long term, SR can make inter-area TE simpler. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
