[184842] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IGP choice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Blackford)
Thu Oct 22 17:22:05 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CACXVQYCTk4oHVuXMQtYGEF1o0DxdftAaZy6MYQmNTFZk8tGY9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:22:02 -0700
From: Bill Blackford <bblackford@gmail.com>
To: Dave Bell <me@geordish.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I don't have all the details because I don't fully understand it, but I've
heard that if you're running an MPLS/RSVP core, you can only use a single
OSPF area. This introduces a scalability ceiling.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Dave Bell <me@geordish.org> wrote:
> On 22 October 2015 at 19:41, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
> > The "everything must connect to Area 0" requirement of OSPF was limiting
> > for me back in 2008.
>
> I'm unsure if this is a serious argument, but its such a poor point
> today. Everything has to be connected to a level 2 in IS-IS. If you
> want a flat area 0 network in OSPF, go nuts. As long as you are
> sensible about what you put in your IGP, both IS-IS and OSPF scale
> very well.
>
> The differences between the two protocols are so small, that people
> really grasp at straws when 'proving' that one is better over the
> other. 'IS-IS doesn't work over IP, so its more secure'. 'IS-IS uses
> TLVs so new features are quicker to implement'. While these may be
> vaguely valid arguments, they don't hold much water. If you don't
> secure your routers to bad actors forming OSPF adjacencies with you,
> you're doing something wrong.Who is running code that is so bleeding
> edge that feature X might be available for IS-IS, but not OSPF?
>
> Chose whichever you and your operational team are most comfortable
> with, and run with it.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
--
Bill Blackford
Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.....
