[OSPF] TTZ discussion point

"Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri)" <dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.com> Sat, 04 August 2012 03:05 UTC

From: "Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri)" <dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:05:00 +0200
Thread-Topic: TTZ discussion point
Thread-Index: Ac1x7e9ngSz9lEdTTjC3IIAgN+JzKw==
Message-ID: <EFDB2B5417263843B5077E12666D8C1004F2BEDD5D@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [OSPF] TTZ discussion point
Precedence: list

Hi all,

As part of the discussions during the OSPF WG meeting, the following comes imho as the bottomline of the discussion for what concerns TTZ: what is the potential gain  

  i) when TTZ is used as "replacement of" existing OSPF techniques (thus compared to multi-area/ABR)

  ii) when TTZ is used "in complement to" OSPF techniques (thus in addition to)

The answer should help determining whether current multi-area/ABR is "too heavy for what it brings" vs there is a "third routing level" required in OSPF to sustain large deployments. 

In the latter case, assuming that multi-area/ABR is still appropriate, the next question would be: is it more suited to look at different mechanism or re-use as much as possible the existing one e.g. "sub-ABR" ?

Opinions ? Comments ?

Thanks,
-dimitri.
-----
Homepage:
<http://belllabs.be/people/dpapadimitriou/>
<http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou>

[OSPF] TTZ discussion point Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri)