Istvan_Rabai Wed, 02/27/2008 - 12:03
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more

Hi Yossi,

Do you have any specific problem with this type of configuration?



ciscograyaw Wed, 02/27/2008 - 12:05
User Badges:

There's no problem in the general case (we use OSPF locally with full-mesh setups), do you have something specific or odd about your setup?

Mohamed Sobair Wed, 02/27/2008 - 12:50
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more


I am not sure I understood the question, But if its related to OSPF design guide, since it uses herachical design, IF you are planning to implement OSPF in your Network, there is recommendation from Cisco, these recommendations relys on the following:

1- Number of routers in Area.

2- Number of Areas per router.

The advantage of implementing Areas, is that you reduce the LSD, each router in Area will have a full picture of its area database, thus reducing the CPU utilization and resources of you router.

a nother benefit is that, some routers dont need to have full topology view , thus impleminting Areas in OSPF is an advantage.



Joseph W. Doherty Wed, 02/27/2008 - 16:45
User Badges:
  • Super Bronze, 10000 points or more

As the other posters have noted, you can bump into scaling issues, possibly sooner with a full mesh depending on how it's implemented.

As to "problems", there are differences depending how OSPF peers with its neighbors.

y-asulin Thu, 02/28/2008 - 01:38
User Badges:

There is no specific issue , just Desgin consideration

Joseph W. Doherty Thu, 02/28/2008 - 04:48
User Badges:
  • Super Bronze, 10000 points or more

What you might keep in mind is how computation intensive OSPF's usage of Dijkstra's algorithm might be. This is really the underlying item that influences OSPF area design. If you were designing a full mesh that only contained 3 or 4 routers using full mesh point-to-point links, unlikely you would have any issues. But because of the geometric expansion of full mesh point-to-point links, 30 or 40 routers is much more than 10x the work.


This Discussion