nanog mailing list archives
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:54:58 -0600
On 1/13/2011 8:46 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
For ISL, I know they are trying to phase that out. For the exams, they are based on dot1q..... Even if I had all cisco equipment, I'd try to go with standards because you never know down the road where you may need to use another vendor. I wouldn't use EIGRP if given a choice, I'd go with OSPF or RIPv2.
Grrr, IS-IS. SP protocol of choice. Don't believe me, look at some juniper licensing (you'll need to pay us more for IS-IS, but OSPF is available on this cheap enterprise switch for freeeeeeee). Has an annoyance factor of not every vendor supporting it, but lack of IS-IS or some of it's features often shows the caliber of gear you are dealing with or it's current maturity (Brocade MLX had IS-IS v6 support, but didn't support multitopology when I last tested, which gives me an idea of their v6 support compared to vendors such as C/J).
OT: Learned my first hard lesson on playing with routing protocols on production network in non-standard ways. MLX was interconnected using single topology to the cisco which was using multitopology. I didn't expect the v6 side to work naturally. Upon upgrading the MLX to a later code, the Juniper isolated by 2 cisco's from the MLX core dumped the routing process repeatedly. Unplugged the MLX, the Juniper stabilized. Gotta love them nasty bugs. Of course, I suspect the bug was related to interconnecting a single topology into a multi-topology, which you really aren't supposed to do. :)
Jack
Current thread:
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?, (continued)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Justin M. Streiner (Jan 11)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Ron Broersma (Jan 11)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? James Smith (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Charles N Wyble (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Joel M Snyder (Jan 10)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Scott Weeks (Jan 12)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chuck Anderson (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Herro91 (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Brandon Kim (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Tony Varriale (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Tony Varriale (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chuck Anderson (Jan 13)
- Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Michael Ruiz (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chris Adams (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Greg Whynott (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Michael Ruiz (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Scott Morris (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Thomas Magill (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Bill Blackford (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chris Adams (Jan 13)