[143557] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stefan Fouant)
Fri Aug 12 08:47:18 2011
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:46:38 -0400
From: Stefan Fouant <sfouant@shortestpathfirst.net>
To: James Jones <james@freedomnet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <A347F122-D8AF-4A3B-80D5-C9ED10E8E95C@freedomnet.co.nz>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Jeffrey S. Young" <young@jsyoung.net>,
CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 8/12/2011 8:40 AM, James Jones wrote:
> 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 have seen and the larger SPs in the US do too. There must be a reason for that.
Actually, i strongly disagree with this statement. A good majority of
the Tier-1 Service Providers that I have worked with in the past used
IS-IS, I think in large part due to the points mentioned earlier. I
know for a fact that in the late 90s, when we were transitioning from an
ATM core to an MPLS core at UUnet, we selected IS-IS largely due to the
fact that it supported MPLS Traffic Engineering extensions before
comparable support was available in OSPF, and the main reason for this
was due to the fact that IS-IS was TLV based.
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-M, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
http://www.shortestpathfirst.net
http://www.twitter.com/sfouant
