[185402] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IGP choice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (marcel.duregards@yahoo.fr)
Mon Oct 26 12:55:59 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:24:59 +0100
From: "marcel.duregards@yahoo.fr" <marcel.duregards@yahoo.fr>
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=pV3nX61CcXg3nhubPBWg0LF-DELBGqbKy6smwJf55gXw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi Matthew,
Thank a lot for your answer. This help me to understand, and make more
sense to me :-).
Thanks,
-Marcel
On 23.10.2015 18:31, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:41 AM, marcel.duregards@yahoo.fr
> <marcel.duregards@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>> sorry for that, but the only one I've heard about switching his core IGP is
>> Yahoo. I've no precision, and it's really interest me.
>> I know that there had OSPF in the DC area, and ISIS in the core, and decide
>> to switch the core from ISIS to OSPF.
>
> Wait, what?
> *checks memory*
> *checks routers*
>
> Nope. Definitely went the other way; OSPF -> IS-IS in the core.
>
>> Why spend so much time/risk to switch from ISIS to OSPF, _in the core_ a not
>> so minor impact/task ?
>> So I could guess it's for maintain only one IGP and have standardized
>> config. But why OSPF against ISIS ? What could be the drivers? People skills
>> (more people know OSPF than ISIS) --> operational reason ?
>
> I'm sorry you received the wrong information,
> the migration was from OSPF to IS-IS, not
> the other way around.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>
