bblackford at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 21:22:02 UTC 2015
I don't have all the details because I don't fully understand it, but I've
heard that if you're running an MPLS/RSVP core, you can only use a single
OSPF area. This introduces a scalability ceiling.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Dave Bell <me at geordish.org> wrote:
> On 22 October 2015 at 19:41, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> > The "everything must connect to Area 0" requirement of OSPF was limiting
> > for me back in 2008.
> I'm unsure if this is a serious argument, but its such a poor point
> today. Everything has to be connected to a level 2 in IS-IS. If you
> want a flat area 0 network in OSPF, go nuts. As long as you are
> sensible about what you put in your IGP, both IS-IS and OSPF scale
> very well.
> The differences between the two protocols are so small, that people
> really grasp at straws when 'proving' that one is better over the
> other. 'IS-IS doesn't work over IP, so its more secure'. 'IS-IS uses
> TLVs so new features are quicker to implement'. While these may be
> vaguely valid arguments, they don't hold much water. If you don't
> secure your routers to bad actors forming OSPF adjacencies with you,
> you're doing something wrong.Who is running code that is so bleeding
> edge that feature X might be available for IS-IS, but not OSPF?
> Chose whichever you and your operational team are most comfortable
> with, and run with it.
Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.....
More information about the NANOG