[192618] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sthaug@nethelp.no)
Thu Nov 10 07:46:36 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:46:30 +0100 (CET)
To: Joel.Snyder@Opus1.com
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <1abf0216-67fa-c56b-4756-b4003b2946b0@Opus1.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> I think you misunderstood his point: it's not the knobs, but the
> vendors. Generally, when you're trying to integrate random crap into an
> otherwise well-structured network, you'll find OSPF available, but very
> rarely IS-IS.
We never really want to talk IS-IS with random crap - in that case
the protocol of choice would be BGP.
> I run into this a lot in the security appliance space, where you want
> your security appliances to either learn or advertise routes internally
> (VPN tunnel reachability is a big reason for this), but also in devices
> such as load balancers and other middlebox cruft that occasionally needs
> to participate in routing advertisement/subscription.
...
> The ones who actually care about making it work almost always include
> RIP and OSPF, with a few shout-outs to BGP. IS-IS (and OSPF v3) rarely
> makes the cut.
We've found that BGP works reasonably well to talk with such boxes,
and also that BGP is generally available.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
