nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGP choice
From: Dave Bell <me () geordish org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:35:53 +0100
On 22 October 2015 at 19:41, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:
The "everything must connect to Area 0" requirement of OSPF was limiting for me back in 2008.
I'm unsure if this is a serious argument, but its such a poor point today. Everything has to be connected to a level 2 in IS-IS. If you want a flat area 0 network in OSPF, go nuts. As long as you are sensible about what you put in your IGP, both IS-IS and OSPF scale very well. The differences between the two protocols are so small, that people really grasp at straws when 'proving' that one is better over the other. 'IS-IS doesn't work over IP, so its more secure'. 'IS-IS uses TLVs so new features are quicker to implement'. While these may be vaguely valid arguments, they don't hold much water. If you don't secure your routers to bad actors forming OSPF adjacencies with you, you're doing something wrong.Who is running code that is so bleeding edge that feature X might be available for IS-IS, but not OSPF? Chose whichever you and your operational team are most comfortable with, and run with it. Regards, Dave
Current thread:
- Re: IGP choice, (continued)
- Re: IGP choice marcel.duregards () yahoo fr (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Matthew Petach (Oct 23)
- RE: IGP choice Jameson, Daniel (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Pablo Lucena (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice marcel.duregards () yahoo fr (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice marcel.duregards () yahoo fr (Oct 26)
- RE: IGP choice Damien Burke (Oct 22)
- RE: IGP choice Steve Mikulasik (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Randy via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Dave Bell (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice sthaug (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Baldur Norddahl (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Pablo Lucena (Oct 22)