[143782] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: OSPF vs IS-IS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Wed Aug 17 10:53:00 2011
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Paul <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:53:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <m2r54kuoya.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
> Sent: 17 August 2011 14:52
> To: Paul
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
>=20
> > What would you rather rely on at 3am in the morning when things are
> > breaking? Someone who has just learned IS-IS or someone who already
> > has good experience with OSPF?
>=20
> what would you rather rely on at three in the morning when things are
> breaking, someone who has just learned OSPF or someone who already
> has good experience with IS-IS?
>=20
> this seems a silly reversal until you realize that OSPF is
> significantly
> more complex and thus harder.
>=20
> randy
Indeed. Does it really take that long to become familiar enough with IS-IS=
to support it in most situations? It really is not that difficult. I brou=
ght our ops people suitable up to speed with IS-IS over about one week of =
some lab work in their spare time and a few chats over a whiteboard. A cou=
ple of times perhaps they called me over an issue, but since then, I have =
not=20heard anything from any of them about it.
I guess it comes down to the quality of people you employ. But really, if =
they get OSPF then IS-IS is not hard to grasp.=20
--=20
Leigh Porter
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email=20
______________________________________________________________________
