nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGP protocol
From: James Bensley <jwbensley () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:53:54 +0000
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 12:09, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 12:37, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:Main reasons: - Doesn't run over IP.Why is this upside? I've seen on two platforms (7600, MX) ISIS punted on routers running ISIS without interface having ISIS. With no ability to limit it, so any connected interface can DoS device with trivial pps rate, if ISIS is being ran.
I guess the OPs original question wasn't clear enough because, I think most people are talking about IS-IS vs OSPF2/3 from a theoretical protocol perspective, and you're talking from a practical vendor implementation perspective.
From a purely theoretical perspective I see IS-IS not running over IP
as an advantage too. No mater what routes I inject into my IGP, IS-IS won't stop working. I may totally fsck my IP reachability but IS-IS will still work, which means that when I fix the issue, service should be restored quite quickly. Several networks I've seen place management in a VRF / L3 VPN, which means that by the time you have remote management access, everything else is already working, it's like the last thing to come up when there's been a problem. I like the "management in the IGP + IS-IS" design. However, in reality the vendor implementation blows the protocol design out of the water. You need to consider both when evaluating a new IGP. Cisco nearly implemented a handy feature with prefix-suppression, whereby in IOS for OSPF only one would prevent p-t-p links being advertised into the IGP database. But they didn't implement this for IS-IS. Then in IOS-XR they removed this feature from OSPF and implemented it for IS-IS ?!?! So yeah, vendors implementations are just as important and the theoretical potential of the protocol. Oh yeah, forgot to answer the original question. For a greenfield deployment I'd be happy with either OSPFv3 or IS-IS as long as it's well designed I don't see much between them, it would come down to vendor support then. Cheers, James.
Current thread:
- RE: IGP protocol, (continued)
- RE: IGP protocol Naslund, Steve (Nov 12)
- Re: IGP protocol valdis . kletnieks (Nov 12)
- RE: IGP protocol Naslund, Steve (Nov 12)
- Re: IGP protocol Job Snijders (Nov 12)
- Re: IGP protocol Brandon Martin (Nov 12)
- Re: IGP protocol Aled Morris via NANOG (Nov 13)
- Re: IGP protocol Tashi Phuntsho (Nov 14)
- Re: IGP protocol Mark Tinka (Nov 13)
- Re: IGP protocol valdis . kletnieks (Nov 12)
- RE: IGP protocol Naslund, Steve (Nov 12)
- Re: IGP protocol Mark Tinka (Nov 13)
- Re: IGP protocol Saku Ytti (Nov 13)
- Re: IGP protocol James Bensley (Nov 14)
- Re: IGP protocol Baldur Norddahl (Nov 14)
- SV: IGP protocol Gustav Ulander (Nov 14)
- Re: IGP protocol James Bensley (Nov 15)
- Re: IGP protocol Saku Ytti (Nov 13)
- Re: IGP protocol Saku Ytti (Nov 13)
- Re: IGP protocol Mark Tinka (Nov 18)
- Re: IGP protocol Saku Ytti (Nov 18)
- Re: IGP protocol Alfie Pates (Nov 18)
- Re: IGP protocol Saku Ytti (Nov 18)
- Re: IGP protocol Nick Hilliard (Nov 18)