IGP choice

Randy randy_94108 at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 22 23:14:48 UTC 2015

OK I will bite -

Yes, RIP everything and let'em all Rest-In-Peace.

My 0.02cents about OP's question-

"Scale" and Admin-headaches:

IS-IS scales far better than OSPF. Admin-headaches - as your OSPF domain grows, do you want to continually re-design; create more areas? You definitely don't want 50k prefixes in your OSPF domain; in area 0 - try it and see how it works.

Security& ease-of-deployment:

IS-IS is inherently a l2 protocol used over IP and is IP-Version independant and I dare say, more secure at the protocol-level compared to any other flavor of IGP.

As to why you see more OSPF than IS-IS(except of a few large one's States-side) is more of a history-lession.


----- Original Message -----
From: Damien Burke <damien at supremebytes.com>
To: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: IGP choice

Just use rip for *everything*

Problem solved!

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:41 AM
To: marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: IGP choice

On 22/Oct/15 18:57, marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Anybody from Yahoo to share experience on IGP choice ?
> IS-IS vs OSPF, why did you switch from one to the other, for what 
> reason ?
> Same question could apply to other ISP, I'd like to heard some 
> international ISP/carriers design choice, please.

The "everything must connect to Area 0" requirement of OSPF was limiting for me back in 2008.

So we moved to IS-IS.


More information about the NANOG mailing list