[162971] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISIS and OSPF together
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson)
Sun May 12 13:49:59 2013
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 19:49:46 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
To: Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPLq3UN6KcDLxA9uq+XW9PLt04YGwaHHe3N-6i136upbCEc5eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: ISIS and OSPF together Date: Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:11:37PM +0530=
Quoting Glen Kent (glen.kent@gmail.com):
> Hi,
>=20
> I would like to understand the scenarios wherein the service
> provider/network admin might run both ISIS and OSPF together inside their
> network. Is this something that really happens out there?
Indeed; one of the more sane situations might be to have say anycast
name servers or full-service resolvers in the network and having them
talk OSPF to the first hop router. ISIS daemons on PC operating systems
are scarce, working ones hardly exist.
It is clear, though, that the path forward is ISIS; most people I've
spoken to roll it out (in greenfield/forklift situations) or migrate to it.
--=20
M=C3=A5ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
I always have fun because I'm out of my mind!!!
--TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlGP1joACgkQ02/pMZDM1cU/6QCfVwPtyZmpN2HinjF51psPKi0n
9C0AnRWp8MGPpfh7mj/0gsFaplY/UFb9
=WMMV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/--
