On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Justin M. Streiner < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, jim deleskie 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. >> > > Agreed. I did an OSPFv3 vs. IS-IS bake-off in my lab several months ago as > part of an IPv6 rollout, and one of the key deciding factors in going with > OSPFv3 over IS-IS was that our ops folks are much more familiar with OSPFv2. > While there are difference between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 in how they work, the > learning curve is a lot less steep than going from OSPFv2 to IS-IS. > > jms > > Do not underestimate the power of ops engineers. Really is not that difficult to learn ISIS and they can add it to their resume. > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, William Cooper <[email protected]> >> 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 >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Stefan Fouant >>> <[email protected]**> wrote: >>> >>>> Well up until not too long ago, to support IPv6 you would run OSPFv3 and >>>> for IPv4 you would run OSPFv2, making IS-IS more attractive, but that is no >>>> longer the case with support for IPv4 NLRI in OSPFv3. >>>> >>>> The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is due >>>> to the fact that IS-IS is decoupled from IP making it less vulnerable to >>>> attacks. >>>> >>>> Stefan Fouant >>>> JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI >>>> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks >>>> http://www.shortestpathfirst.**net <http://www.shortestpathfirst.net> >>>> http://www.twitter.com/sfouant >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Aug 11, 2011, at 8:57 AM, CJ <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey all, >>>>> Is there any reason to run IS-IS over OSPF in the SP core? Currently, >>>>> we >>>>> are running IS-IS but we are redesigning our core and now would be a >>>>> good >>>>> time to switch. I would like to switch to OSPF, mostly because of >>>>> familiarity with OSPF over IS-IS. >>>>> What does everyone think? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> CJ >>>>> >>>>> http://convergingontheedge.com >>>>> <http://www.**convergingontheedge.com<http://www.convergingontheedge.com> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
