[OSPF] Question to the field people
Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com> Tue, 17 September 2013 13:39 UTC
Return-Path: <asmirnov@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8EA11E81EB for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jVLulM6FY9uS for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D691911E8221 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2208; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1379425187; x=1380634787; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject; bh=z+QbG2hZOqkcFTi4wS0uSRJe+G8IB/Sk56CgvA1I7Vc=; b=VvtGVhXQr9K94pgHIngexuDGh2c1iJ5LpRVTZIRhWScQja98gflucg/7 weDVbdqe1ruSzEPm/0E2JJJe5hVid2iTwRPy3PlpdyVJfRzit8WjH3KUQ DTxOMJvi7KI6zgOib5mNIRJQoABpbx5coBPedXd3BnwuTbT9D+ajL+f5A o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AroFAMpaOFKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABbgweKEbkxFm0HgyQgARwWGAMCAQIBSw0IAQGHf5lmoF+UDAOXe5F0gyY6
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.90,923,1371081600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="18076184"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Sep 2013 13:39:46 +0000
Received: from asm-lnx.cisco.com (ams-asmirnov-8712.cisco.com [10.55.140.83]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8HDdi4D029881 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:39:44 GMT
Message-ID: <52385BA0.2030801@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:39:44 +0200
From: Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121025 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030407050108080605020804"
Subject: [OSPF] Question to the field people
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:39:54 -0000
Hi all,
it should be pretty obvious where this question is coming from but ...
I would appreciate if people using OSPF in their networks answered
(privately, if you want) a simple question:
ISIS allows link metric to be in the range of 1-2^24 and path cost
during SPF calculation 2^32.
OSPF uses costs of 2^16 and 2^24 respectively.
Was it ever considered as a limitation or serious factor affecting
choice of IGP to usein the network?
Thanks,
Anton
- [OSPF] Question to the field people Anton Smirnov
- Re: [OSPF] Question to the field people Curtis Villamizar