nanog mailing list archives
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
From: Matt Addison <matt.addison () lists evilgeni us>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:49:58 -0400
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 21:11, Vinny Abello <vinny () abellohome net> wrote:
One of my favorite features in IS-IS is the ability to set the overload bit during maintenance. The effect is the router on which you set it isn't seen by any other devices in the topology as a transit path, but you can still reach the router itself. I'm not as familiar with OSPF so I'm unsure if there is a similar feature, but I thought it was exclusive to IS-IS. Being able to easily limit the IGP size via the above technique is also a great benefit. You can basically get away with just your loopbacks. -Vinny
Cisco and Juniper both support this (overload) in OSPFv2 using the process described in RFC 3137. Juniper use the familiar 'overload' command under the OSPF configuration, Cisco use the 'max-metric router-lsa' [1] command under the OSPF config. Both should give similar results to ISIS overload. ~Matt 1: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6599/products_white_paper09186a00800ade18.shtml
Current thread:
- RE: OSPF vs IS-IS, (continued)
- RE: OSPF vs IS-IS Doug Marschke (Aug 16)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Jeff Wheeler (Aug 12)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Douglas Otis (Aug 12)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Randy Bush (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Stefan Fouant (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Jimmy Hess (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Stefan Fouant (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Joel Jaeggli (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Vinny Abello (Aug 13)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Matt Addison (Aug 13)