[143517] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Duerstock)
Thu Aug 11 10:19:57 2011
In-Reply-To: <CADr_k3ZUfHmWQyBu48x_0RsbEphj_XOZ+b=ygxJ0kYBk1G=2bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:19:17 -0400
From: Jason Duerstock <jason.duerstock@gallaudet.edu>
To: CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM, CJ <cjinfantino@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>
>
Granted, we're not a service provider, so we operate on a different scale
here, but one interesting trick that can be done with ISIS (at least on
Cisco) is this:
router a
-----------
router isis
advertise passive-only
interface loopback0
ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.255
interface vlan2
ip unnumbered loopback0
ip router isis
isis network point-to-point
router b
-----------
(copy router isis definition from router a)
interface loopback0
ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.255
(copy vlan2 definition from router a)
-----------
This removes the associated headaches with /30s or /31s in having to keep
track of their allocation, as well as having them clog the your routing
table.
-waits for replies stating why this is a bad idea-
Now, if I could just get isis-per-vrf-instance support on the Catalyst 6500.
Jason
