I know we are just talking about the core, but out of curiosity will you have any MPLS/BGP VPNS that you may want to run the IGP over.
In this case, OSPF may make a little more sense. However if you are really just talking the core, I would agree with the rest of the list, as the decoupling of IP has some advantages and does the TLV structure. Doug Marschke Chief Operating Officer JNCIE-ER #3, JNCIE-M #41, JNCI (415) 704-5005 (office) (415) 902-5702 (cell) (415)-358-4059 (fax) www.proteus.net -----Original Message----- From: CJ [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:24 AM To: jim deleskie Cc: [email protected]; Jeffrey S. Young Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On 12/08/2011, at 12:08 AM, CJ <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[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 > > > > 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>
