By segmenting into hierarchy will limit the scope or the domain and the number of packets needs to be processed by each routers , rather I would say the processing overhead for each router in OSPF. Hierarchical routing confines network instability to a single area of the network. i.e. Hierarchical routing hides network instability from routers ...

Putting up this bit from the anatomy book on the hierarchical routing with OSPF. OSPF support a two-level hierarchical routing g scheme through the use of OSP F areas . Each OSP F area is identified by a 32-bi t Are a I D and consistss of a collection of network segments interconnected by routers . Inside any given OSPF area , OSPF runs as ...

OSPF uses a two-layer area hierarchy: • Backbone area— An OSPF area whose primary function is the fast and efficient movement of IP packets. Backbone areas interconnect with other OSPF area types. Generally, end users are not found within a backbone area. The backbone area is also called OSPF area 0.

An OSPF network works best with a hierarchical design, in which the movement of data from one area to another comprises only a subset of the traffic within the area itself. It is important to remember that with all the interarea traffic disseminated by the backbone, any reduction of overhead through a solid hierarchical design and summarization ...

OSPF is widely regarded as easier to configure and manage, especially in enterprise environments with smaller, less complex networks. Its hierarchical design (areas) and extensive documentation make it more approachable for network engineers who may not be specialists in routing protocols.

OSPF and IS-IS are very similar in how they do route calculations. IS-IS used to have a feature called "partial route calculation", which was a subset of full SPF calculation, which was a little more efficient on the CPU than OSPF. But nowadays, I think OSPF caught up with incremental SPF feature, so they are again neck and neck.

OSPF is harder to configure mostly becasue of the required wildcard mask and areas, but if I recall it is a good idea to add the wildcard mask to your EIGRP network statements anyway. If you are looking at a hierarchical design, OSPF wins since it …

As an example, here are some factors I would prefer OSPF over EIGRP: the link state database (having a whole of view or “map” of the area), hierarchical design, metric calculation, and open standard (works in multi-vendor environments).

ospf is hierarchical in nature - the BB area is like grand central station "ospf areas" address two main concerns of any routing protocol choice...scaling, and convergence time, and the way ospf is designed assists in both those areas . areas - the way they limit LSAs, and send out route summarizations - neccessitate the concept of the BB area.

2. IS-IS/OSPF: attach the IGP to the unnumbered interface loopback and “automagically” the adjacencies are built. 3. VTEP Loopback: Carve out another /32 to be used for the VTEP, the one for IP unnumbered can be used for BGP peering as well. 4. iBGP EVPN: place a pair of Route-Reflectors (RRs) on the spines and use prefix-based BGP peering.