Hi Huaimo, > Assume that a big L1 area (say Area A1) is connected to backbone domain. > Let us compare TTZ and Areas for scalability. > > Using TTZ, we need two steps below: > 1) configure a piece of Area A1, named P1, as a zone; and > 2) transfer P1 to a virtual node using one command or two. > > Using Areas, we need four steps below to split Area A1 into two L1 areas > A11 and A12: > 1) configure the edges between A11 and A12 as L2/L1 to backbone domain; > 2) add/configure a new area address on the routers in target Area A12; > 3) configure Attach bit for A11 or A12; and > 4) delete the old area address from the routers in Area A12. > > Using TTZ is simpler than using Areas.
I’m not quite sure I follow you. Are you arguing that simplicity is achieved through the minimum number of configuration steps? If so, I’d like to introduce you to Arista CVP, our management platform, where all of this can be easily automated: 1 step. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
