[143631] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey S. Young)
Sat Aug 13 08:44:53 2011
In-Reply-To: <A347F122-D8AF-4A3B-80D5-C9ED10E8E95C@freedomnet.co.nz>
From: "Jeffrey S. Young" <young@jsyoung.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:44:06 +1000
To: James Jones <james@freedomnet.co.nz>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That's interesting and if true would represent a real change. Can you list
the larger SPs in the US that use OSPF?
jy
On 12/08/2011, at 10:40 PM, James Jones <james@freedomnet.co.nz> wrote:
> I would not say ISIS is the prefered protocol. Most service providers I ha=
ve worked with use OSPF. Most networks outside of the US use it from what I h=
ave seen and the larger SPs in the US do too. There must be a reason for tha=
t.
>=20
>=20
> Sent from my iPhone
>=20
> On Aug 12, 2011, at 8:23 AM, CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> 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 beca=
use
>> 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 f=
or
>>> 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>
>=20
