Hi Tony, > It’s very clear that this is inadequate.
Doesn't this really depend how you architect multiple levels ? Sure you have some physical topology - but it seems to me that the trick is in properly laying out levels on top of them and between them. To my original question - how many levels can you run on the physical box ? And can levels be locally and logically interconnected ? Then of course if you have applications (MPLS exact FEC match or SR-MPLS with SRLBs) which do not allow any aggregation you are pretty much stuck no matter what :). Rgs, R. On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:12 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 2020, at 3:45 AM, Henk Smit <[email protected]> wrote: > > BTW, personally I think the proper solution to scale IS-IS to larger > networks is 8 levels of hierarchy. Too bad that idea gets so little > push from vendors and operators. > > > > Hi Henk, > > It’s very clear that this is inadequate. The structure of legacy IS-IS > areas effectively precludes a scalable network for using lower levels for > transit. This constrains ISPs to ‘cauliflower’ topology where you have L1 > on the outside, L2 just inside of L1, L3 inside of L2, etc. > > We already see networks who are unwilling to use the two levels that we > have today due to this constraint. > > Regards, > Tony > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
