OSPF vs IS-IS
doug at proteus.net
Tue Aug 16 22:22:55 CDT 2011
I know we are just talking about the core, but out of curiosity will you
have any MPLS/BGP VPNS that you may want to run the IGP over.
In this case, OSPF may make a little more sense.
However if you are really just talking the core, I would agree with the rest
of the list, as the decoupling of IP has some advantages and does the TLV
Chief Operating Officer
JNCIE-ER #3, JNCIE-M #41, JNCI
(415) 704-5005 (office)
(415) 902-5702 (cell)
From: CJ [mailto:cjinfantino at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:24 AM
To: jim deleskie
Cc: nanog at nanog.org; Jeffrey S. Young
Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
You guys are making a lot of good points.
I will check into the Doyle book to formulate an opinion. So, I am
completely new to the SP environment and OSPF is what I have learned because
I have ever only had experience in the enterprise.
It seems that from this discussion, IS-IS is still a real, very viable
option. So, IS-IS being preferred...realistically, what is the learning
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie at gmail.com> wrote:
> If a network is big enough big / complex enough that you really need
> to worry about performance of mesh groups or tweaking areas then its
> big enough that having a noc eng page you out at 2am when there is an
> issue doesn't really scale. I'm all for ISIS, if I was to build a
> network from scratch I'd likely default to it. I'm just say, new
> features or performance aside the knowledge of your team under you
> will have much more impact on how your network runs then probably any
> other factor. I've seen this time and time again when 'new tech' has
> been introduced into networks, from vendors to protocols. Most every
> time with engineers saying we have smart people they will learn it /
> adjust. Almost every case of that turned into 6 mts of crap for both
> ops and eng while the ops guys became clueful in the new tech, but as
> a friend frequently says Your network, your choice.
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jeffrey S. Young <young at jsyoung.net>
> > On 12/08/2011, at 12:08 AM, CJ <cjinfantino at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Awesome, I was thinking the same thing. Most experience is OSPF so it
> >> makes sense.
> >> That is a good tip about OSPFv3 too. I will have to look more deeply
> >> OSPFv3.
> >> Thanks,
> >> -CJ
> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:34 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie at gmail.com>
> >>> 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
> >>>> 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
> > This topic is a 'once a month' on NANOG, I'm sure we could check
> > the archives for some point-in-time research but I'm curious to learn
> > if anyone maintains statistics?
> > It would be interesting to see statistics on how many service providers
> > either protocol. IS-IS has, for some years, been the de facto choice
> > and as a result the vendor and standardisation community 'used to'
> > SP features more often for IS-IS. IS-IS was, therefore, more 'mature'
> than OSPF
> > for SP's. I wonder if this is still the case?
> > For me, designing an IGP with IS-IS is much easier than it is with OSPF.
> > Mesh groups are far easier to plan (more straightforward) easier to
> > than OSPF areas. As for junior noc staff touching much of anything to
> > with an ISP's IGP at 2am, wake me up instead.
> > jy
More information about the NANOG