On Tuesday 10 March 2009 11:53:57 am Paul Goyette wrote: > The other interesting thing is that the router needs to > keep additional state information in the internal OSPF > routing tables to enable ISPF. In my opinion, with > today's routers, memory seems to be more of a limitation > than CPU horsepower.
But I imagine we'd be talking about control plane memory here, not switch fabric memory (FIB), where the former is more expandable (in relation, since they really aren't the same thing). Besides, if networks follow the good practice of using IGP's to hold infrastructure and Loopback addresses only, and throw the rest into iBGP, the scalability of the IGP is far greater. But I do agree, while iSPF and PRC help make CPU utilization more efficient, they actually mostly shine during periods where bad things are happening to the network, e.g. multiple link or node failures, control plane attacks, e.t.c. So under normal circumstances, today's routers have quick enough CPU's for SPF calculations not to be such a huge problem (good fundamental design being the case. of course). Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
