OSPF vs IS-IS

Thu Aug 11 13:34:49 UTC 2011

Having run both on some good sized networks, I can tell you to run
what your ops folks know best.  We can debate all day the technical
merits of one v another, but end of day, it always comes down to your
most jr ops eng having to make a change at 2 am, you need to design
for this case, if your using OSPF today and they know OSPF I'd say
stick with it to reduce the chance of things blowing up at 2am when
someone tries to 'fix' something else.

-jim

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, William Cooper <wcooper02 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm totally in concurrence with Stephan's point.
>
> Couple of things to consider: a) deciding to migrate to either ISIS or
> OSPFv3 from another protocol is still migrating to a new protocol
> and b) even in the case of migrating to OSPFv3, there are fairly
> significant changes in behavior from OSPFv2 to be aware of (most
> notably
> authentication, but that's fodder for another conversation).
>
> -Tony
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Stefan Fouant
> <sfouant at shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
>> Well up until not too long ago, to support IPv6 you would run OSPFv3 and for IPv4 you would run OSPFv2, making IS-IS more attractive, but that is no longer the case with support for IPv4 NLRI in OSPFv3.
>>
>> The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is due to the fact that IS-IS is decoupled from IP making it less vulnerable to attacks.
>>
>> Stefan Fouant
>> JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI
>> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
>> http://www.shortestpathfirst.net
>> http://www.twitter.com/sfouant
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2011, at 8:57 AM, CJ <cjinfantino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>> Is there any reason to run IS-IS over OSPF in the SP core? Currently, we
>>> are running IS-IS but we are redesigning our core and now would be a good
>>> time to switch. I would like to switch to OSPF, mostly because of
>>> familiarity with OSPF over IS-IS.
>>> What does everyone think?
>>>
>>> --
>>> CJ
>>>
>>> http://convergingontheedge.com <http://www.convergingontheedge.com>
>>
>>
>
>