What are two drawbacks of implementing a link-state routing protocol?

What are two drawbacks of implementing a link-state routing protocol? (Choose two.)

What are two drawbacks of implementing a link-state routing protocol? (Choose two.)

A.
the sequencing and acknowledgment of link-state packets

B.
the requirement for a hierarchical IP addressing scheme for optimal functionality

C.
the high volume of link-state advertisements in a converged network

D.
the high demand on router resources to run the link-state routing algorithm

E.
the large size of the topology table listing all advertised routes in the converged network

Explanation:



Leave a Reply 3

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


vota pota

vota pota

Link-state routing protocols typically require more memory, more CPU processing, and at times, more bandwidth than distance vector routing protocols. The memory requirements are because of the use of link-state databases and the creation of the SPF tree.

Link-state protocols can also require more CPU processing than distance vector routing protocols. The SPF algorithm requires more CPU time than distance vector algorithms

Link-state routing protocols such as OSPF and IS-IS use the concept of areas. Multiple areas create a hierarchical design to networks, allowing better route aggregation (summarisation) and the isolation of routing issues within an area. Multi-area OSPF is outwith the scope of this course and you will probably use only one area, most like called area 0.

Flooding of link-state packets can adversely affect the available bandwidth on a network. This should only occur during initial startup of routers, but it can also be an issue on unstable networks.

McAllister

McAllister

Hierarch – resource

Vinh nyuen

Vinh nyuen

Higher resource