[143555] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Jones)
Fri Aug 12 08:41:43 2011
In-Reply-To: <CADr_k3bpmfGEZ2dSBT9KVWfU3bZJhNyeuBkdFGE1A34aMK3z8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Jones <james@freedomnet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:40:52 -0400
To: CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Jeffrey S. Young" <young@jsyoung.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I would not say ISIS is the prefered protocol. Most service providers I have=
worked with use OSPF. Most networks outside of the US use it from what I ha=
ve seen and the larger SPs in the US do too. There must be a reason for that=
.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 12, 2011, at 8:23 AM, CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys are making a lot of good points.
>=20
> 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 becau=
se
> I have ever only had experience in the enterprise.
>=20
> 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
> curve?
>=20
>=20
> CJ
>=20
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> -jim
>>=20
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jeffrey S. Young <young@jsyoung.net>
>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 12/08/2011, at 12:08 AM, CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Awesome, I was thinking the same thing. Most experience is OSPF so it
>> only
>>>> makes sense.
>>>>=20
>>>> That is a good tip about OSPFv3 too. I will have to look more deeply
>> into
>>>> OSPFv3.
>>>>=20
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>=20
>>>> -CJ
>>>>=20
>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:34 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> -jim
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, William Cooper <wcooper02@gmail.com>=
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm totally in concurrence with Stephan's point.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Couple of things to consider: a) deciding to migrate to either ISIS o=
r
>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> -Tony
>>>=20
>>> 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?
>>>=20
>>> It would be interesting to see statistics on how many service providers
>> run
>>> either protocol. IS-IS has, for some years, been the de facto choice fo=
r
>> SP's
>>> and as a result the vendor and standardisation community 'used to'
>> develop
>>> 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?
>>>=20
>>> 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
>> change
>>> than OSPF areas. As for junior noc staff touching much of anything to d=
o
>>> with an ISP's IGP at 2am, wake me up instead.
>>>=20
>>> jy
>>>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> CJ
>=20
> http://convergingontheedge.com <http://www.convergingontheedge.com>
