Re: OSPF vs IS-IS

["Jeffrey S. Young" <young () jsyoung net>]

That's interesting and if true would represent a real change.  Can you list
the larger SPs in the US that use OSPF?

jy

On 12/08/2011, at 10:40 PM, James Jones <james () freedomnet co nz> wrote:

> I would not say ISIS is the prefered protocol. Most service providers I have worked with use OSPF. Most networks 
> outside of the US use it from what I have seen and the larger SPs in the US do too. There must be a reason for that.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 12, 2011, at 8:23 AM, CJ <cjinfantino () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > You guys are making a lot of good points.
> >
> > I will check into the Doyle book to formulate an opinion. So, I am
> > completely new to the SP environment and OSPF is what I have learned because
> > I have ever only had experience in the enterprise.
> >
> > It seems that from this discussion, IS-IS is still a real, very viable
> > option. So, IS-IS being preferred...realistically, what is the learning
> > curve?
> >
> >
> > CJ
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > > If a network is big enough big / complex enough that you really need
> > > to worry about performance of mesh groups or tweaking areas then its
> > > big enough that having a noc eng page you out at 2am when there is an
> > > issue doesn't really scale.  I'm all for ISIS, if I was to build a
> > > network from scratch I'd likely default to it.  I'm just say, new
> > > features or performance aside the knowledge of your team under you
> > > will have much more impact on how your network runs then probably any
> > > other factor.  I've seen this time and time again when 'new tech' has
> > > been introduced into networks, from vendors to protocols.  Most every
> > > time with engineers saying we have smart people they will learn it /
> > > adjust.  Almost every case of that turned into 6 mts of crap for both
> > > ops and eng while the ops guys became clueful in the new tech, but as
> > > a friend frequently says Your network, your choice.
> > >
> > > -jim
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jeffrey S. Young <young () jsyoung net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 12/08/2011, at 12:08 AM, CJ <cjinfantino () gmail com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Awesome, I was thinking the same thing. Most experience is OSPF so it
> > > only
> > > > > makes sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is a good tip about OSPFv3 too. I will have to look more deeply
> > > into
> > > > > OSPFv3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > -CJ
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:34 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > Having run both on some good sized networks, I can tell you to run
> > > > > > what your ops folks know best.  We can debate all day the technical
> > > > > > merits of one v another, but end of day, it always comes down to your
> > > > > > most jr ops eng having to make a change at 2 am, you need to design
> > > > > > for this case, if your using OSPF today and they know OSPF I'd say
> > > > > > stick with it to reduce the chance of things blowing up at 2am when
> > > > > > someone tries to 'fix' something else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -jim
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, William Cooper <wcooper02 () gmail com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm totally in concurrence with Stephan's point.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Couple of things to consider: a) deciding to migrate to either ISIS or
> > > > > > > OSPFv3 from another protocol is still migrating to a new protocol
> > > > > > > and b) even in the case of migrating to OSPFv3, there are fairly
> > > > > > > significant changes in behavior from OSPFv2 to be aware of (most
> > > > > > > notably
> > > > > > > authentication, but that's fodder for another conversation).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Tony
> > > >
> > > > This topic is a 'once a month' on NANOG, I'm sure we could check
> > > > the archives for some point-in-time research but  I'm curious to learn
> > > > if anyone maintains statistics?
> > > >
> > > > It would be interesting to see statistics on how many service providers
> > > run
> > > > either protocol.  IS-IS has, for some years, been the de facto choice for
> > > SP's
> > > > and as a result the vendor and standardisation community 'used to'
> > > develop
> > > > SP features more often for IS-IS.  IS-IS was, therefore, more 'mature'
> > > than OSPF
> > > > for SP's.  I wonder if this is still the case?
> > > >
> > > > For me, designing an IGP with IS-IS is much easier than it is with OSPF.
> > > > Mesh groups are far easier to plan (more straightforward) easier to
> > > change
> > > > than OSPF areas.  As for junior noc staff touching much of anything to do
> > > > with an ISP's IGP at 2am, wake me up instead.
> > > >
> > > > jy
> > > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > CJ
> >
> > http://convergingontheedge.com <http://www.convergingontheedge.com>