OSPF vs IS-IS

Thu Aug 11 14:08:44 UTC 2011

Awesome, I was thinking the same thing. Most experience is OSPF so it only
makes sense.

That is a good tip about OSPFv3 too. I will have to look more deeply into
OSPFv3.

Thanks,

-CJ

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:34 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

-- 
CJ

http://convergingontheedge.com <http://www.convergingontheedge.com>