nanog mailing list archives
Re: ISIS and OSPF together
From: vijay gill <vgill () vijaygill com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 10:35:12 -0700
Randy is correct. In most cases, the two protocols are running co-incident for a while so you can do your table validation and topology mapping and then you turn off OSPF. For vendors that aren't capable of supporting ISIS, this is a feature and not a bug. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
One scenario that i can think of when somebody might run the 2 protocols ISIS and OSPF together for a brief period is when the admin is migrating from one IGP to the other. This, i understand never happens in steady state. The only time this can happen is if an AS gets merged into another AS (due to mergers and acquisitions) and the two ASes happen to run ISIS and OSPF respectively. In such instances, there is a brief period whentwoprotocols might run together before one gets turned off and there is only one left.no. some ops come to see the light and move their network from ospf to is-is. see vijay gill's nanog preso http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog29/presentations/aol-backbone.ram
Current thread:
- ISIS and OSPF together Glen Kent (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Peter Ehiwe (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Mikael Abrahamsson (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Randy Bush (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together vijay gill (May 19)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Victor Kuarsingh (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Glen Kent (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Scott Morris (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Victor Kuarsingh (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Randy Bush (May 13)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Glen Kent (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Måns Nilsson (May 12)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Jen Linkova (May 15)
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Jayram Deshpande (May 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: ISIS and OSPF together Brandon Butterworth (May 19)