Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 12/Nov/16 16:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

>
> I have not studied OSPFv3 in detail but it appears that only IPv6 link
> local addresses are used. Since that can not be routed, I do not think
> OSPFv3 exposes anything to the Internet. I would probably go with
> OSPFv3 if I had to configure a network without VRF support.
>
> If I was coding an OSPFv3 daemon I would make it bind only to link
> local addresses on interfaces, which will guarantee that no traffic is
> received from outsiders.

OSPFv3 does, indeed, form adjacencies against the link-local scope -
fe80::/10. This is unlike OSPFv2 which does the same on the configured
IPv4 address.

If I had to run OSPF, it would certainly be OSPFv3. Even when using it
to carry IPv4 NLRI, you still need to run IPv6 on the corresponding
interfaces as that is how adjacencies to support either or both address
families are formed.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Baldur Norddahl]

Den 11/11/2016 kl. 11.20 skrev Mark Tinka:



On 11/Nov/16 12:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote:


No filters. There are just no routes that will take a network packet that
arrive on an interface in VRF internet and move it to an interface in VRF
default without adding a MPLS header to mark the VRF. With the MPLS header
the packet type is no longer IPv4 but MPLS.

Therefore there is no way you from the internet or from a customer link can
even attempt to inject packets that would be received by the OSPF process.
Since we use 10.0.0.0/8 and our vrf internet has no such route, you would
just get no route to host if you tried.


Good for you.

We don't run the whole "Internet in a VRF" architecture (too many 
moving parts), so not having our IGP being exposed to IP helps :-).


Internet in a VRF just works and it is not at all complicated. I will 
recommend it for anyone which has the equipment that can do it. I do 
realise that not everyone can do this however.


I have not studied OSPFv3 in detail but it appears that only IPv6 link 
local addresses are used. Since that can not be routed, I do not think 
OSPFv3 exposes anything to the Internet. I would probably go with OSPFv3 
if I had to configure a network without VRF support.


If I was coding an OSPFv3 daemon I would make it bind only to link local 
addresses on interfaces, which will guarantee that no traffic is 
received from outsiders.


Regards,

Baldur

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Nov/16 21:34, Florian Weimer wrote:

>
> Has the name been a problem for you?  Asking vendors about support
> must be a bit awkward these days.

Why do you reckon?

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Florian Weimer]

* Mark Tinka:

> I've given a talk about this a couple of times since 2008. But our
> reasons are to choosing IS-IS are:

Has the name been a problem for you?  Asking vendors about support
must be a bit awkward these days.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Michael Hallgren]

Hi,

What IGP features do you need, and for what reason?

Cheers,
mh⁣​Le 10 nov. 2016, à 23:04, Josh Reynolds  a écrit:

I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a multi-thousand line
hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to make
submarine crews blush.

Cisco has been pushing EIGRP and IS-IS as part of their "showing" for
decades. During that same time frame, the majority of the other vendors and
the open source daemons have been using OSPF as their IGP offering. In the
mean time, Cisco found a need to introduce more and more vendor specific
features into their IS-IS offering - no different than any other vendor
would do in their situation to promote the business case (better scaling,
vendor lock-in, other bits).

If you go looking for cross vendor compatibility with as many devices
(routers, switches, servers, etc) as possible, you're going to end up with
OSPF [or BGP, for the data center types that run it to edge nodes]. You
will find a handful, as some have mentioned, of vendors that have adopted
the open version of the protocol and have tried to add
comparable/compatible features to close the gap.

Since the last time I looked, I could not get the same feature sets running
IS-IS in a multi-vendor environment as I could running OSPF. This was my
experience at the time, based on my research and discussions with the
vendors.

On Nov 10, 2016 3:49 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:

Josh Reynolds wrote:

I'm sure a lot has changed with Juniper as of 2011 in regard to IS-IS
support, which was the last time *I* looked.

No, I do not have a list sitting ready, that catalogs in details
between product lines and specific firmware versions and subversions
between multiple vendors what one supports and what one does not as of
Nov 11, 2016.

What I can do is point you at the vendor list where you can make a
comparison of that vendor to others, for the features that you need in
your environment - as I'm not getting paid to maintain such lists, and
they are.


So what you're saying is that you can't even provide a single missing
feature to justify trash-talking a vendor the way you did? Not even one??

Nick

Le 10 nov. 2016 23:04, à 23:04, Josh Reynolds  a écrit:
>I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a multi-thousand
>line
>hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to make
>submarine crews blush.
>
>Cisco has been pushing EIGRP and IS-IS as part of their "showing" for
>decades. During that same time frame, the majority of the other vendors
>and
>the open source daemons have been using OSPF as their IGP offering. In
>the
>mean time, Cisco found a need to introduce more and more vendor
>specific
>features into their IS-IS offering - no different than any other vendor
>would do in their situation to promote the business case (better
>scaling,
>vendor lock-in, other bits).
>
>If you go looking for cross vendor compatibility with as many devices
>(routers, switches, servers, etc) as possible, you're going to end up
>with
>OSPF [or BGP, for the data center types that run it to edge nodes]. You
>will find a handful, as some have mentioned, of vendors that have
>adopted
>the open version of the protocol and have tried to add
>comparable/compatible features to close the gap.
>
>Since the last time I looked, I could not get the same feature sets
>running
>IS-IS in a multi-vendor environment as I could running OSPF. This was
>my
>experience at the time, based on my research and discussions with the
>vendors.
>
>On Nov 10, 2016 3:49 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
>
>> Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> > I'm sure a lot has changed with Juniper as of 2011 in regard to
>IS-IS
>> > support, which was the last time *I* looked.
>> >
>> > No, I do not have a list sitting ready, that catalogs in details
>> > between product lines and specific firmware versions and
>subversions
>> > between multiple vendors what one supports and what one does not as
>of
>> > Nov 11, 2016.
>> >
>> > What I can do is point you at the vendor list where you can make a
>> > comparison of that vendor to others, for the features that you need
>in
>> > your environment - as I'm not getting paid to maintain such lists,
>and
>> > they are.
>>
>> So what you're saying is that you can't even provide a single missing
>> feature to justify trash-talking a vendor the way you did?  Not even
>one??
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

My first post:

On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman"  wrote:

> Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but
> provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
> the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
> linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few people
> on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
> adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
> provide any actual details.
>
> Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as the
> landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
> with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
> not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
> job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
> protocols are suitable for all jobs.
>
> /Charles
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
> > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very much
> like
> > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and point
> > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality of an
> > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the time
> to
> > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
> >
> > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
> $vendor,
> > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
> documentation
> > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and subversion
> > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the
> point
> > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted enough
> > time already.
> >
> > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the routing
> > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare bones
> > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they comparable
> > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with far
> > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum to
> > even go by that name in a datasheet.
> >
> > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your
> environment
> > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
> >
> > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
> >
> >> Josh Reynolds wrote:
> >> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a multi-thousand
> >> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to
> make
> >> > submarine crews blush.
> >>
> >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful
> rant.
> >>
> >> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if you
> >> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you made
> >> about junos's alleged feature deficits.
> >>
> >> Nick
> >>
> >>
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Dragan Jovicic]

In my experience/personal opinion, compared to OSPF2/3, in a large ISP,
ISIS:

- has simpler and better, less bloated code. Think ISIS on Juniper. Think
FreeBSD vs Linux.
- is more modular to introduce new features.
- has certain knobs which makes it a bit more useful for ISP (LSP
lifetime/Max number of LSP fragments, etc).

This is for a large single L1/L2/backbone area. There are at least 2 design
options I would consider before switching to multi-area ISP design.

With that said I know of at least two of the largest ISPs tat use OSPF and
many use that favor ISIS so it really comes down to ISP's preference and
NOC willingness to learn new unfamiliar protocol.

BR




On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/Nov/16 14:30, Joel M Snyder wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In a world where you are doing well-controlled Cisco/Juniper/etc
> > networks with fairly homogeneous code bases, the engineers get to have
> > this discussion.  When you have to link in devices for which routing
> > is not their primary reason to exist, your options narrow very
> > quickly. It's not ideal; that's just the way it is.
>
> Quagga's IS-IS implementation is a great example.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Nov/16 12:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

> No filters. There are just no routes that will take a network packet that
> arrive on an interface in VRF internet and move it to an interface in VRF
> default without adding a MPLS header to mark the VRF. With the MPLS header
> the packet type is no longer IPv4 but MPLS.
>
> Therefore there is no way you from the internet or from a customer link can
> even attempt to inject packets that would be received by the OSPF process.
> Since we use 10.0.0.0/8 and our vrf internet has no such route, you would
> just get no route to host if you tried.

Good for you.

We don't run the whole "Internet in a VRF" architecture (too many moving
parts), so not having our IGP being exposed to IP helps :-).

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Baldur Norddahl]

Den 11. nov. 2016 06.41 skrev "Mark Tinka" :
>
>
>
> On 10/Nov/16 21:43, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>>
>> And at the day work I also prefer OSPFv2 simply because I do not need
more protocols in the stack. We are running a MPLS network with the
internet service in a L3VPN. IPv6 is also in the L3VPN. This means the
underlying network is pure IPv4 and totally isolated from the internet. Why
make it more complicated by introducing something that is not IP based?
>
>
> I'd counter that "Why not make it less complicating by removing an
easily-reachable attack vector?"
>
> Sure, you can easily protect your OSPF domain from external attack, but
that's something your router CPU and/or data plane would have to deal with
it had to, and we've all seen situations where filters break in certain
code for various reasons. Or vendors change the way filtering works in
newer code without properly notifying customers about such changes.
>
> Mark.

No filters. There are just no routes that will take a network packet that
arrive on an interface in VRF internet and move it to an interface in VRF
default without adding a MPLS header to mark the VRF. With the MPLS header
the packet type is no longer IPv4 but MPLS.

Therefore there is no way you from the internet or from a customer link can
even attempt to inject packets that would be received by the OSPF process.
Since we use 10.0.0.0/8 and our vrf internet has no such route, you would
just get no route to host if you tried.

Regards

Baldur

Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Nov/16 08:22, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:

>
> We have a similar use case, and we run BGP on Quagga. Works great.
> Haven't seen a need for either IS-IS or OSPF on Quagga yet.

Two reasons for us:

  * IGP metrics in the IGP will determine latency-based decisions. I
know BGP can infer the IGP metric, but we are just avoiding
situations where this could be non-deterministic due to other
BGP-things.

  * BGP occurs at a much higher layer in the network stack. We run the
Anycast servers in the IGP domain because that is at a much more
basic layer. If BGP fails, we don't want to have problems logging
into our routers because it took TACACS+ with it. There have been
times when BGP has run into issues but the IGP has remained alive.
Via a jump host (and OoB, of course), we were able to maintain
connectivity to the network to fix it because those servers are in
the IGP domain.

Mark.

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[sthaug]

> > I think people were looking for specifics about the implementation
> > deficits in the junos version which caused enough problems to justify
> > the term "not getting it"?
> 
> The only IS-IS implementation we struggle with is Quagga.
> 
> For that, we run OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 on Quagga and redistribute that into
> the IS-IS core.
> 
> Use-case is Anycast (DNS, NTP, TACACS+, e.t.c.) on FreeBSD.

We have a similar use case, and we run BGP on Quagga. Works great.
Haven't seen a need for either IS-IS or OSPF on Quagga yet.

For our core IGP it's IS-IS all the way. We switched from OSPF to
IS-IS more than 10 years ago, and never regretted it.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Nov/16 03:04, Josh Reynolds wrote:

> So, we need to narrow the discussion now to only commercial solutions?

Well, they are the ones we can b*tch and moan to to fix stuff because we
pay them a lot of money.

I b*tched and moaned to the Quagga routing team and they showed me a
place where I could donate money so they can spend more time on a
protocol that they don't get a lot of demand for. I can appreciate that
(and I have been slacking in making that funding available to them - mea
culpa; apologies Mikael and team, I'll resurrect this).

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Nov/16 02:54, Josh Reynolds wrote:

> Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :)
>
> http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/

Quagga's IS-IS implementation limitations are well-known.

But I don't recall them being in your original list of vendors that had
a failed IS-IS implementation (which included Juniper).

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Nov/16 02:53, Josh Reynolds wrote:

> Here's a start!
>
> "Support for OSPFv3 and IS-IS is various beta states currently; IS-IS for
> IPv4 is believed to be usable while OSPFv3 and IS-IS for IPv6 have known
> issues."

Such as?

Mark.

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Nov/16 02:00, Josh Reynolds wrote:

> That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the routing
> platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare bones
> IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they comparable
> or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with far
> more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum to
> even go by that name in a datasheet.

I (as I suppose most) would consider full spec. support of the protocol
to be a bare minimum and acceptable for production.

Non-spec. extensions are nice-to-have. Spec. extensions are part of the
bare minimum, and would be supported.

I'm all for having no configurations on a router - that way, there are
fewer avenues to cause network problems. But, we do need configurations
on routers to make them work. So if I don't really the knob, it's no
good having it there in the first place.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Nov/16 02:33, Josh Reynolds wrote:

> My first post said the following:
>
> "Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF."

Again, the only one I know that struggles is Quagga.

But I've not heard any reports from anyone running Brocade, Nokia (ALU),
Huawei, e.t.c. that IS-IS doesn't work or is quite limited.

I can say both Cisco and Juniper have no issues at all in this area.

Arista are young in the routing space, but I am confident their
implementations will be up to par soon (if they aren't already).

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 11/Nov/16 00:03, Josh Reynolds wrote:

> Since the last time I looked, I could not get the same feature sets running
> IS-IS in a multi-vendor environment as I could running OSPF. This was my
> experience at the time, based on my research and discussions with the
> vendors.

I'd be curious to know what features you were getting in OSPF that were
unavailable in IS-IS, at the time.

Mark.

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 23:53, Charles van Niman wrote:

> I don't think Nick asked for a list, just one single thing, any one
> thing. To me at least, it doesn't really make sense to make the
> statement you did, without pointing out what can be done to improve
> the situation. I would be very interested to hear what network
> requirements are not being met with Juniper's current IS-IS
> implementation.

To be honest, none that I can think of.

Many of the feature differences are vendor-specific, particularly with
how you can further optimize IS-IS to handle LSP's flooding, flushing,
re-calculation, throttling, e.t.c.

Bottom line, Juniper fully supports the IS-IS spec., from what we see.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 21:43, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

>
> And at the day work I also prefer OSPFv2 simply because I do not need
> more protocols in the stack. We are running a MPLS network with the
> internet service in a L3VPN. IPv6 is also in the L3VPN. This means the
> underlying network is pure IPv4 and totally isolated from the
> internet. Why make it more complicated by introducing something that
> is not IP based?

I'd counter that "Why not make it less complicating by removing an
easily-reachable attack vector?"

Sure, you can easily protect your OSPF domain from external attack, but
that's something your router CPU and/or data plane would have to deal
with it had to, and we've all seen situations where filters break in
certain code for various reasons. Or vendors change the way filtering
works in newer code without properly notifying customers about such changes.

Mark.

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 21:23, Nick Hilliard wrote:

>
> I think people were looking for specifics about the implementation
> deficits in the junos version which caused enough problems to justify
> the term "not getting it"?

The only IS-IS implementation we struggle with is Quagga.

For that, we run OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 on Quagga and redistribute that into
the IS-IS core.

Use-case is Anycast (DNS, NTP, TACACS+, e.t.c.) on FreeBSD.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 20:01, Josh Reynolds wrote:

> Cisco is the only "real" IS-IS vendor.
>
> Juniper, Brocade, Arista, Avaya, etc you're not getting it. Any of the
> whitebox hardware or real SDN capable solutions, you're going to be on
> OSPF.
>

We are quite happy with our Cisco-Juniper IS-IS interactions.

Granted, IOS, IOS XE and IOS XR all have several IS-IS knobs that
Juniper don't, but in all fairness, we aren't complaining.

We have the right knobs in the right place on each vendor kit to run a
successful IGP domain.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 18:54:36 -0600, Josh Reynolds said:
> Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :)
>
> http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/

So you have *one* implementation that admits it's still somewhat lacking?

Color me.. underwhelmed.


pgpzgDayRUSxr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Tim Jackson]

Uh.


I quote:

> Cisco is the only "real" IS-IS vendor.

> Juniper, Brocade, Arista, Avaya, etc you're not getting it. Any of the
> whitebox hardware or real SDN capable solutions, you're going to be on
OSPF.

Care to elaborate on any of those commercial vendors?

--
Tim

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> So, we need to narrow the discussion now to only commercial solutions?
>
> This is fun and all (not really) but you can have your thread.
>
> Congrats, you win. I'm not sure what.
>
> On Nov 10, 2016 7:01 PM, "Tim Jackson"  wrote:
>
>> So what about commercial implementations?
>>
>> --
>> Tim
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :)
>>>
>>> http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2016 6:53 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:
>>>
 Here's a start!

 "Support for OSPFv3 and IS-IS is various beta states currently; IS-IS
 for IPv4 is believed to be usable while OSPFv3 and IS-IS for IPv6 have
 known issues."

 On Nov 10, 2016 6:50 PM, "Tim Jackson"  wrote:

> Maybe you didn't look hard enough?
>
> ISIS feature support in a bunch of different products has sucked for a
> long time vs OSPF, but that's a pretty well known and accepted fact.
> Generally these features are the same across multiple products from the
> same vendor (usually across the same OS anyway)...
>
> Just name 1 feature that was in Cisco and wasn't in other
> implementations... Just one.. Something.. Does ISIS on IOS make 
> and
> hand out ice cream on Fridays? I want to know if I'm missing out..
>
> --
> Tim
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
>> My first post said the following:
>>
>> "Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF."
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS"
>> but
>> > provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
>> > the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
>> > linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few
>> people
>> > on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
>> > adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
>> > provide any actual details.
>> >
>> > Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as
>> the
>> > landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
>> > with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
>> > not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
>> > job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
>> > protocols are suitable for all jobs.
>> >
>> > /Charles
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds <
>> j...@kyneticwifi.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very
>> much
>> > like
>> > > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and
>> point
>> > > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality
>> of an
>> > > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take
>> the time
>> > to
>> > > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
>> > >
>> > > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
>> > $vendor,
>> > > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
>> > documentation
>> > > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and
>> subversion
>> > > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with
>> the
>> > point
>> > > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted
>> enough
>> > > time already.
>> > >
>> > > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the
>> routing
>> > > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support
>> bare bones
>> > > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they
>> comparable
>> > > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*,
>> with far
>> > > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare
>> minimum to
>> > > even go by that name in a datasheet.
>> > >
>> > > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your
>> > environment
>> > > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Josh Reynolds wrote:

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

So, we need to narrow the discussion now to only commercial solutions?

This is fun and all (not really) but you can have your thread.

Congrats, you win. I'm not sure what.

On Nov 10, 2016 7:01 PM, "Tim Jackson"  wrote:

> So what about commercial implementations?
>
> --
> Tim
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
>> Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :)
>>
>> http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2016 6:53 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a start!
>>>
>>> "Support for OSPFv3 and IS-IS is various beta states currently; IS-IS
>>> for IPv4 is believed to be usable while OSPFv3 and IS-IS for IPv6 have
>>> known issues."
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2016 6:50 PM, "Tim Jackson"  wrote:
>>>
 Maybe you didn't look hard enough?

 ISIS feature support in a bunch of different products has sucked for a
 long time vs OSPF, but that's a pretty well known and accepted fact.
 Generally these features are the same across multiple products from the
 same vendor (usually across the same OS anyway)...

 Just name 1 feature that was in Cisco and wasn't in other
 implementations... Just one.. Something.. Does ISIS on IOS make and
 hand out ice cream on Fridays? I want to know if I'm missing out..

 --
 Tim

 On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Josh Reynolds 
 wrote:

> My first post said the following:
>
> "Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF."
>
> On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman" 
> wrote:
>
> > Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but
> > provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
> > the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
> > linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few
> people
> > on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
> > adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
> > provide any actual details.
> >
> > Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as
> the
> > landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
> > with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
> > not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
> > job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
> > protocols are suitable for all jobs.
> >
> > /Charles
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds  >
> > wrote:
> > > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very
> much
> > like
> > > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and
> point
> > > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality
> of an
> > > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the
> time
> > to
> > > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
> > >
> > > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
> > $vendor,
> > > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
> > documentation
> > > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and
> subversion
> > > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with
> the
> > point
> > > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted
> enough
> > > time already.
> > >
> > > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the
> routing
> > > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support
> bare bones
> > > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they
> comparable
> > > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*,
> with far
> > > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare
> minimum to
> > > even go by that name in a datasheet.
> > >
> > > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your
> > environment
> > > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
> > >
> > > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Josh Reynolds wrote:
> > >> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a
> multi-thousand
> > >> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful
> language to
> > make
> > >> > submarine crews blush.
> > >>
> > >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a
> beautiful
> > rant.
> > >>
> > >> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if
> you
> > >> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the 

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Tim Jackson]

So what about commercial implementations?

--
Tim

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :)
>
> http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/
>
> On Nov 10, 2016 6:53 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:
>
>> Here's a start!
>>
>> "Support for OSPFv3 and IS-IS is various beta states currently; IS-IS for
>> IPv4 is believed to be usable while OSPFv3 and IS-IS for IPv6 have known
>> issues."
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2016 6:50 PM, "Tim Jackson"  wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you didn't look hard enough?
>>>
>>> ISIS feature support in a bunch of different products has sucked for a
>>> long time vs OSPF, but that's a pretty well known and accepted fact.
>>> Generally these features are the same across multiple products from the
>>> same vendor (usually across the same OS anyway)...
>>>
>>> Just name 1 feature that was in Cisco and wasn't in other
>>> implementations... Just one.. Something.. Does ISIS on IOS make and
>>> hand out ice cream on Fridays? I want to know if I'm missing out..
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 My first post said the following:

 "Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF."

 On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman" 
 wrote:

 > Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but
 > provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
 > the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
 > linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few people
 > on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
 > adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
 > provide any actual details.
 >
 > Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as the
 > landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
 > with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
 > not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
 > job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
 > protocols are suitable for all jobs.
 >
 > /Charles
 >
 > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds 
 > wrote:
 > > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very
 much
 > like
 > > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and
 point
 > > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality
 of an
 > > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the
 time
 > to
 > > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
 > >
 > > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
 > $vendor,
 > > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
 > documentation
 > > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and
 subversion
 > > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the
 > point
 > > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted
 enough
 > > time already.
 > >
 > > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the
 routing
 > > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare
 bones
 > > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they
 comparable
 > > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*,
 with far
 > > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare
 minimum to
 > > even go by that name in a datasheet.
 > >
 > > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your
 > environment
 > > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
 > >
 > > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
 > >
 > >> Josh Reynolds wrote:
 > >> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a
 multi-thousand
 > >> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language
 to
 > make
 > >> > submarine crews blush.
 > >>
 > >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful
 > rant.
 > >>
 > >> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if
 you
 > >> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you
 made
 > >> about junos's alleged feature deficits.
 > >>
 > >> Nick
 > >>
 > >>
 >

>>>
>>>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :)

http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/

On Nov 10, 2016 6:53 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:

> Here's a start!
>
> "Support for OSPFv3 and IS-IS is various beta states currently; IS-IS for
> IPv4 is believed to be usable while OSPFv3 and IS-IS for IPv6 have known
> issues."
>
> On Nov 10, 2016 6:50 PM, "Tim Jackson"  wrote:
>
>> Maybe you didn't look hard enough?
>>
>> ISIS feature support in a bunch of different products has sucked for a
>> long time vs OSPF, but that's a pretty well known and accepted fact.
>> Generally these features are the same across multiple products from the
>> same vendor (usually across the same OS anyway)...
>>
>> Just name 1 feature that was in Cisco and wasn't in other
>> implementations... Just one.. Something.. Does ISIS on IOS make and
>> hand out ice cream on Fridays? I want to know if I'm missing out..
>>
>> --
>> Tim
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My first post said the following:
>>>
>>> "Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF."
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but
>>> > provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
>>> > the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
>>> > linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few people
>>> > on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
>>> > adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
>>> > provide any actual details.
>>> >
>>> > Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as the
>>> > landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
>>> > with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
>>> > not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
>>> > job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
>>> > protocols are suitable for all jobs.
>>> >
>>> > /Charles
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very
>>> much
>>> > like
>>> > > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and
>>> point
>>> > > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality of
>>> an
>>> > > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the
>>> time
>>> > to
>>> > > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
>>> > >
>>> > > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
>>> > $vendor,
>>> > > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
>>> > documentation
>>> > > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and
>>> subversion
>>> > > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the
>>> > point
>>> > > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted
>>> enough
>>> > > time already.
>>> > >
>>> > > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the
>>> routing
>>> > > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare
>>> bones
>>> > > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they
>>> comparable
>>> > > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*,
>>> with far
>>> > > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare
>>> minimum to
>>> > > even go by that name in a datasheet.
>>> > >
>>> > > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your
>>> > environment
>>> > > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Josh Reynolds wrote:
>>> > >> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a
>>> multi-thousand
>>> > >> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language
>>> to
>>> > make
>>> > >> > submarine crews blush.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful
>>> > rant.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if
>>> you
>>> > >> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you
>>> made
>>> > >> about junos's alleged feature deficits.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Nick
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

Here's a start!

"Support for OSPFv3 and IS-IS is various beta states currently; IS-IS for
IPv4 is believed to be usable while OSPFv3 and IS-IS for IPv6 have known
issues."

On Nov 10, 2016 6:50 PM, "Tim Jackson"  wrote:

> Maybe you didn't look hard enough?
>
> ISIS feature support in a bunch of different products has sucked for a
> long time vs OSPF, but that's a pretty well known and accepted fact.
> Generally these features are the same across multiple products from the
> same vendor (usually across the same OS anyway)...
>
> Just name 1 feature that was in Cisco and wasn't in other
> implementations... Just one.. Something.. Does ISIS on IOS make and
> hand out ice cream on Fridays? I want to know if I'm missing out..
>
> --
> Tim
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
>> My first post said the following:
>>
>> "Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF."
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman"  wrote:
>>
>> > Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but
>> > provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
>> > the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
>> > linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few people
>> > on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
>> > adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
>> > provide any actual details.
>> >
>> > Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as the
>> > landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
>> > with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
>> > not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
>> > job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
>> > protocols are suitable for all jobs.
>> >
>> > /Charles
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>> > wrote:
>> > > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very much
>> > like
>> > > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and point
>> > > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality of
>> an
>> > > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the
>> time
>> > to
>> > > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
>> > >
>> > > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
>> > $vendor,
>> > > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
>> > documentation
>> > > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and subversion
>> > > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the
>> > point
>> > > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted
>> enough
>> > > time already.
>> > >
>> > > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the
>> routing
>> > > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare
>> bones
>> > > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they
>> comparable
>> > > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with
>> far
>> > > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum
>> to
>> > > even go by that name in a datasheet.
>> > >
>> > > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your
>> > environment
>> > > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> > >> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a
>> multi-thousand
>> > >> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to
>> > make
>> > >> > submarine crews blush.
>> > >>
>> > >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful
>> > rant.
>> > >>
>> > >> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if you
>> > >> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you
>> made
>> > >> about junos's alleged feature deficits.
>> > >>
>> > >> Nick
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Tim Jackson]

Maybe you didn't look hard enough?

ISIS feature support in a bunch of different products has sucked for a long
time vs OSPF, but that's a pretty well known and accepted fact. Generally
these features are the same across multiple products from the same vendor
(usually across the same OS anyway)...

Just name 1 feature that was in Cisco and wasn't in other
implementations... Just one.. Something.. Does ISIS on IOS make and
hand out ice cream on Fridays? I want to know if I'm missing out..

--
Tim

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> My first post said the following:
>
> "Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF."
>
> On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman"  wrote:
>
> > Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but
> > provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
> > the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
> > linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few people
> > on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
> > adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
> > provide any actual details.
> >
> > Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as the
> > landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
> > with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
> > not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
> > job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
> > protocols are suitable for all jobs.
> >
> > /Charles
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> > wrote:
> > > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very much
> > like
> > > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and point
> > > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality of an
> > > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the time
> > to
> > > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
> > >
> > > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
> > $vendor,
> > > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
> > documentation
> > > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and subversion
> > > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the
> > point
> > > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted
> enough
> > > time already.
> > >
> > > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the routing
> > > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare
> bones
> > > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they
> comparable
> > > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with
> far
> > > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum
> to
> > > even go by that name in a datasheet.
> > >
> > > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your
> > environment
> > > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
> > >
> > > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Josh Reynolds wrote:
> > >> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a
> multi-thousand
> > >> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to
> > make
> > >> > submarine crews blush.
> > >>
> > >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful
> > rant.
> > >>
> > >> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if you
> > >> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you made
> > >> about junos's alleged feature deficits.
> > >>
> > >> Nick
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

My first post said the following:

"Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF."

On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman"  wrote:

> Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but
> provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
> the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
> linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few people
> on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
> adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
> provide any actual details.
>
> Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as the
> landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
> with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
> not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
> job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
> protocols are suitable for all jobs.
>
> /Charles
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
> > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very much
> like
> > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and point
> > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality of an
> > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the time
> to
> > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
> >
> > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
> $vendor,
> > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
> documentation
> > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and subversion
> > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the
> point
> > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted enough
> > time already.
> >
> > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the routing
> > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare bones
> > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they comparable
> > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with far
> > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum to
> > even go by that name in a datasheet.
> >
> > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your
> environment
> > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
> >
> > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
> >
> >> Josh Reynolds wrote:
> >> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a multi-thousand
> >> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to
> make
> >> > submarine crews blush.
> >>
> >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful
> rant.
> >>
> >> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if you
> >> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you made
> >> about junos's alleged feature deficits.
> >>
> >> Nick
> >>
> >>
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Charles van Niman]

Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but
provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few people
on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
provide any actual details.

Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as the
landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
protocols are suitable for all jobs.

/Charles

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very much like
> Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and point
> because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality of an
> internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the time to
> go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
>
> So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with $vendor,
> on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult documentation
> of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and subversion
> release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the point
> of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted enough
> time already.
>
> That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the routing
> platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare bones
> IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they comparable
> or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with far
> more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum to
> even go by that name in a datasheet.
>
> Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your environment
> as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
>
> On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
>
>> Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a multi-thousand
>> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to make
>> > submarine crews blush.
>>
>> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful rant.
>>
>> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if you
>> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you made
>> about junos's alleged feature deficits.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very much like
Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and point
because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality of an
internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the time to
go through it, to find discrepancies between them.

So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with $vendor,
on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult documentation
of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and subversion
release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the point
of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted enough
time already.

That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the routing
platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare bones
IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they comparable
or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with far
more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum to
even go by that name in a datasheet.

Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your environment
as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.

On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:

> Josh Reynolds wrote:
> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a multi-thousand
> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to make
> > submarine crews blush.
>
> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful rant.
>
> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if you
> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you made
> about junos's alleged feature deficits.
>
> Nick
>
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Nick Hilliard]

Josh Reynolds wrote:
> I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a multi-thousand
> line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to make
> submarine crews blush.

I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful rant.

Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if you
manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you made
about junos's alleged feature deficits.

Nick

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a multi-thousand line
hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to make
submarine crews blush.

Cisco has been pushing EIGRP and IS-IS as part of their "showing" for
decades. During that same time frame, the majority of the other vendors and
the open source daemons have been using OSPF as their IGP offering. In the
mean time, Cisco found a need to introduce more and more vendor specific
features into their IS-IS offering - no different than any other vendor
would do in their situation to promote the business case (better scaling,
vendor lock-in, other bits).

If you go looking for cross vendor compatibility with as many devices
(routers, switches, servers, etc) as possible, you're going to end up with
OSPF [or BGP, for the data center types that run it to edge nodes]. You
will find a handful, as some have mentioned, of vendors that have adopted
the open version of the protocol and have tried to add
comparable/compatible features to close the gap.

Since the last time I looked, I could not get the same feature sets running
IS-IS in a multi-vendor environment as I could running OSPF. This was my
experience at the time, based on my research and discussions with the
vendors.

On Nov 10, 2016 3:49 PM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:

> Josh Reynolds wrote:
> > I'm sure a lot has changed with Juniper as of 2011 in regard to IS-IS
> > support, which was the last time *I* looked.
> >
> > No, I do not have a list sitting ready, that catalogs in details
> > between product lines and specific firmware versions and subversions
> > between multiple vendors what one supports and what one does not as of
> > Nov 11, 2016.
> >
> > What I can do is point you at the vendor list where you can make a
> > comparison of that vendor to others, for the features that you need in
> > your environment - as I'm not getting paid to maintain such lists, and
> > they are.
>
> So what you're saying is that you can't even provide a single missing
> feature to justify trash-talking a vendor the way you did?  Not even one??
>
> Nick
>
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Charles van Niman]

I don't think Nick asked for a list, just one single thing, any one
thing. To me at least, it doesn't really make sense to make the
statement you did, without pointing out what can be done to improve
the situation. I would be very interested to hear what network
requirements are not being met with Juniper's current IS-IS
implementation.

/Charles

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> I'm sure a lot has changed with Juniper as of 2011 in regard to IS-IS
> support, which was the last time *I* looked.
>
> No, I do not have a list sitting ready, that catalogs in details
> between product lines and specific firmware versions and subversions
> between multiple vendors what one supports and what one does not as of
> Nov 11, 2016.
>
> What I can do is point you at the vendor list where you can make a
> comparison of that vendor to others, for the features that you need in
> your environment - as I'm not getting paid to maintain such lists, and
> they are.
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
>> Josh Reynolds wrote:
>>> I have not kept up with all of the feature differences between Cisco's
>>> implementation and the other vendors. I can only encourage others
>>> interested in this to compare the specific feature sets between the
>>> two and see if it meets their needs. What I need in an environment
>>> from an IGP may be totally different from another data center,
>>> transport, or transit network provider.
>>
>> so you aren't prepared to (or can't) provide a single detail about all
>> the many features that the junos isis implementation is apparently
>> missing, which would justify saying that Juniper is "not getting it"
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> Not even one?  A tiny little thin one?  Just... just one...?
>>
>> Nick
>>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Nick Hilliard]

Josh Reynolds wrote:
> I'm sure a lot has changed with Juniper as of 2011 in regard to IS-IS
> support, which was the last time *I* looked.
> 
> No, I do not have a list sitting ready, that catalogs in details
> between product lines and specific firmware versions and subversions
> between multiple vendors what one supports and what one does not as of
> Nov 11, 2016.
> 
> What I can do is point you at the vendor list where you can make a
> comparison of that vendor to others, for the features that you need in
> your environment - as I'm not getting paid to maintain such lists, and
> they are.

So what you're saying is that you can't even provide a single missing
feature to justify trash-talking a vendor the way you did?  Not even one??

Nick

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

I'm sure a lot has changed with Juniper as of 2011 in regard to IS-IS
support, which was the last time *I* looked.

No, I do not have a list sitting ready, that catalogs in details
between product lines and specific firmware versions and subversions
between multiple vendors what one supports and what one does not as of
Nov 11, 2016.

What I can do is point you at the vendor list where you can make a
comparison of that vendor to others, for the features that you need in
your environment - as I'm not getting paid to maintain such lists, and
they are.

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> I have not kept up with all of the feature differences between Cisco's
>> implementation and the other vendors. I can only encourage others
>> interested in this to compare the specific feature sets between the
>> two and see if it meets their needs. What I need in an environment
>> from an IGP may be totally different from another data center,
>> transport, or transit network provider.
>
> so you aren't prepared to (or can't) provide a single detail about all
> the many features that the junos isis implementation is apparently
> missing, which would justify saying that Juniper is "not getting it"
>
> Ok.
>
> Not even one?  A tiny little thin one?  Just... just one...?
>
> Nick
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Nick Hilliard]

Josh Reynolds wrote:
> I have not kept up with all of the feature differences between Cisco's
> implementation and the other vendors. I can only encourage others
> interested in this to compare the specific feature sets between the
> two and see if it meets their needs. What I need in an environment
> from an IGP may be totally different from another data center,
> transport, or transit network provider.

so you aren't prepared to (or can't) provide a single detail about all
the many features that the junos isis implementation is apparently
missing, which would justify saying that Juniper is "not getting it"

Ok.

Not even one?  A tiny little thin one?  Just... just one...?

Nick

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

I have not kept up with all of the feature differences between Cisco's
implementation and the other vendors. I can only encourage others
interested in this to compare the specific feature sets between the
two and see if it meets their needs. What I need in an environment
from an IGP may be totally different from another data center,
transport, or transit network provider.

If I were a vendor or one of the other I would likely have a list of
what I do support, or what my competition does not support.

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> As with anything, it depends on what your needs are.
>>
>> https://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html
>>
>> Type IS-IS in the box
>>
>> Feature set will vary between JunOS releases.
>
> Josh,
>
> you made two statements:
>
> 1. Juniper was "not getting it" and
> 2. "they miss many of the IS-IS features Cisco has".
>
> Could you provide details on these "many" features that Junos is
> missing?  Linking to Juniper's feature explorer is hand-waving, and does
> not answer the question.
>
> Nick
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Nick Hilliard]

Josh Reynolds wrote:
> As with anything, it depends on what your needs are.
> 
> https://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html
> 
> Type IS-IS in the box
> 
> Feature set will vary between JunOS releases.

Josh,

you made two statements:

1. Juniper was "not getting it" and
2. "they miss many of the IS-IS features Cisco has".

Could you provide details on these "many" features that Junos is
missing?  Linking to Juniper's feature explorer is hand-waving, and does
not answer the question.

Nick

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

As with anything, it depends on what your needs are.

https://pathfinder.juniper.net/feature-explorer/search-features.html

Type IS-IS in the box

Feature set will vary between JunOS releases.

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> Juniper of their own merits, but they miss many of the IS-IS  features
>> Cisco has (of course).
>
> I think people were looking for specifics about the implementation
> deficits in the junos version which caused enough problems to justify
> the term "not getting it"?
>
> Nick

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Baldur Norddahl]

I prefer OSPF because it is easier to implement when you can just use a 
normal UDP socket instead of dealing with raw sockets...


And at the day work I also prefer OSPFv2 simply because I do not need 
more protocols in the stack. We are running a MPLS network with the 
internet service in a L3VPN. IPv6 is also in the L3VPN. This means the 
underlying network is pure IPv4 and totally isolated from the internet. 
Why make it more complicated by introducing something that is not IP based?


Regards,

Baldur

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Nick Hilliard]

Josh Reynolds wrote:
> Juniper of their own merits, but they miss many of the IS-IS  features
> Cisco has (of course).

I think people were looking for specifics about the implementation
deficits in the junos version which caused enough problems to justify
the term "not getting it"?

Nick

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

Juniper of their own merits, but they miss many of the IS-IS  features
Cisco has (of course).

Huawei has very "Cisco-like" code, so there's that...

Can't speak for Nokia.

On Nov 10, 2016 12:22 PM,  wrote:

> > Cisco is the only "real" IS-IS vendor.
> >
> > Juniper, Brocade, Arista, Avaya, etc you're not getting it. Any of the
> > whitebox hardware or real SDN capable solutions, you're going to be on
> OSPF.
>
> Maybe you need to tell us what the other companies aren't getting?
> We're using IS-IS on (mostly) Juniper and Huawei, but also Alcatel/
> Lucent/Nokia and Cisco. It just works.
>
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[David Bass]

Are you sure those other vendors don't do it too?  Lol.  

Dual stack ISIS on Juniper is a thing of beauty...

> On Nov 10, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> 
> Cisco is the only "real" IS-IS vendor.
> 
> Juniper, Brocade, Arista, Avaya, etc you're not getting it. Any of the
> whitebox hardware or real SDN capable solutions, you're going to be on OSPF.
> 
>> On Nov 10, 2016 12:13 AM, "Mark Tinka"  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/Nov/16 04:52, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> 
>> Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF.
>> 
>> 
>> Depends on the vendor.
>> 
>> Cisco have as many knobs for IS-IS as they do for OSPF.
>> 
>> Juniper, not so much.
>> 
>> Don't know about other vendors.
>> 
>> At any rate, many of these knobs are not part of the original protocol
>> spec., although they can be very useful when scaling.
>> 
>> Mark.
>> 

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[sthaug]

> Cisco is the only "real" IS-IS vendor.
> 
> Juniper, Brocade, Arista, Avaya, etc you're not getting it. Any of the
> whitebox hardware or real SDN capable solutions, you're going to be on OSPF.

Maybe you need to tell us what the other companies aren't getting?
We're using IS-IS on (mostly) Juniper and Huawei, but also Alcatel/
Lucent/Nokia and Cisco. It just works.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

Cisco is the only "real" IS-IS vendor.

Juniper, Brocade, Arista, Avaya, etc you're not getting it. Any of the
whitebox hardware or real SDN capable solutions, you're going to be on OSPF.

On Nov 10, 2016 12:13 AM, "Mark Tinka"  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/Nov/16 04:52, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>
> Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF.
>
>
> Depends on the vendor.
>
> Cisco have as many knobs for IS-IS as they do for OSPF.
>
> Juniper, not so much.
>
> Don't know about other vendors.
>
> At any rate, many of these knobs are not part of the original protocol
> spec., although they can be very useful when scaling.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Nick Hilliard]

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> This is a feature of IS-IS. You're less likely to get random crap in
> your IGP.
> 
> :P

that alone makes a great argument for connecting to this sort of device
using bgp.  Some vendors approach ospf with a hilarity-first attitude,
and at least bgp has the knobs to treat those sort of devices as if they
had a contagious disease.

Nick

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 14:30, Joel M Snyder wrote:

>  
>
> In a world where you are doing well-controlled Cisco/Juniper/etc
> networks with fairly homogeneous code bases, the engineers get to have
> this discussion.  When you have to link in devices for which routing
> is not their primary reason to exist, your options narrow very
> quickly. It's not ideal; that's just the way it is.

Quagga's IS-IS implementation is a great example.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 12:54, Zbyněk Pospíchal wrote:

> In theory, yes. In the real world operators need MPLS label
> distribution, which is still not supported in many implementations.

But dual-stack protocol support in the IGP has nothing to do with MPLS.

Now, if you're talking about LDPv6 or SR, then...

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 12:17, James Bensley wrote:

>
> I don't think there is much of a debate to be had any more, the gap
> between them is so small now (OSPFv3 and ISIS that is, no one would
> deploy OSPFv2 now in greenfield right?):

Most networks that I know are greenfielding an IGP will deploy both
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Worst case, just OSPFv2.


>
> This is in OSPv3.

Right, but if a network does not yet want to run IPv6 (2016, anyone),
then this becomes an issue as IPv6 NLRI is carried over the IPv6 transport.

This could also come down to implementation. I looked at this for the
first time back in Junos 9.0 (when it was still an IETF draft), and no
other vendor had it yet. It has since matured and I know both Juniper
and Cisco have decent code.

I can't speak for other vendors, particularly if you multi-vendor.

> Single area 0 deployment at scale? Bit of a moot point unless you
> compare a specific device model and specific code version in two
> identical deployments, its not much to do with the protocol but the
> vendor implementation and the brute force.

Like I said to Randy, if I did deploy OSPF ever (quite unlikely), there
is enough CPU in today's router to, I think, run a single Area 0 for the
whole thing.


> OSPv3 has this.

Yep, as I did mention.


> OSPF has these too.

More of them in OSPFv3 than OSPFv2. But then again, vendor-specific
knobs can be had here for cheap.


> Yeah this ^ I don't think there is a stronge case for either protocol.
>
> Somenoe mentioned the AOL NANOG talk about migrating from OSPF to
> ISIS. There was a NANOG talk recently-ish about someone migrating from
> OSPF to BGP. There wasn't even a need for an IGP, BGP scalled better
> for them (in the DC).
>
> BGP these days supports PIC and BFD etc, how much longer to IGPs have? :)

Sounds like you're talking about BGP-LS.

If you are, then BGP-LS still requires an IGP. It's just that the IGP
has a much more micro view of the network, while BGP-LS is tasked with
the macro side of things.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[sthaug]

> I think you misunderstood his point: it's not the knobs, but the 
> vendors.  Generally, when you're trying to integrate random crap into an 
> otherwise well-structured network, you'll find OSPF available, but very 
> rarely IS-IS.

We never really want to talk IS-IS with random crap - in that case
the protocol of choice would be BGP.

> I run into this a lot in the security appliance space, where you want 
> your security appliances to either learn or advertise routes internally 
> (VPN tunnel reachability is a big reason for this), but also in devices 
> such as load balancers and other middlebox cruft that occasionally needs 
> to participate in routing advertisement/subscription.
...
> The ones who actually care about making it work almost always include 
> RIP and OSPF, with a few shout-outs to BGP.  IS-IS (and OSPF v3) rarely 
> makes the cut.

We've found that BGP works reasonably well to talk with such boxes,
and also that BGP is generally available.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Joel M Snyder wrote:

I think you misunderstood his point: it's not the knobs, but the 
vendors. Generally, when you're trying to integrate random crap into an 
otherwise well-structured network, you'll find OSPF available, but very 
rarely IS-IS.


This is a feature of IS-IS. You're less likely to get random crap in your 
IGP.


:P

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Joel M Snyder]

>> Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF.

>Depends on the vendor.

I think you misunderstood his point: it's not the knobs, but the 
vendors.  Generally, when you're trying to integrate random crap into an 
otherwise well-structured network, you'll find OSPF available, but very 
rarely IS-IS.


I run into this a lot in the security appliance space, where you want 
your security appliances to either learn or advertise routes internally 
(VPN tunnel reachability is a big reason for this), but also in devices 
such as load balancers and other middlebox cruft that occasionally needs 
to participate in routing advertisement/subscription.


Some vendors grab random open source routing protocol code that includes 
everything and dump it into their boxes, usually accessible via an 
entirely separate configuration interface; this can include IS-IS, but 
these implementations rarely actually work as they are usually "check 
list" implemented for a specific RFP or customer and never get widely 
tested.


The ones who actually care about making it work almost always include 
RIP and OSPF, with a few shout-outs to BGP.  IS-IS (and OSPF v3) rarely 
makes the cut.


In a world where you are doing well-controlled Cisco/Juniper/etc 
networks with fairly homogeneous code bases, the engineers get to have 
this discussion.  When you have to link in devices for which routing is 
not their primary reason to exist, your options narrow very quickly. 
It's not ideal; that's just the way it is.



jms


--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One   Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1.comhttp://www.opus1.com/jms

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Zbyněk Pospíchal]

Dne 10.11.16 v 11:17 James Bensley wrote:

>>   * Integrated IPv4/IPv6 protocol support in a single IGP implementation.
> 
> This is in OSPv3.

In theory, yes. In the real world operators need MPLS label
distribution, which is still not supported in many implementations.

Regards,
Zbynek

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[James Bensley]

On 10 November 2016 at 05:59, Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>
> On 9/Nov/16 19:12, Michael Bullut wrote:
>
>> Greetings Team,
>>
>> While I haven't worked with IS-IS before but the only disadvantage I've
>> encountered with OSPF is that it is resource intensive on the router it is
>> running on which is why only one instance runs on any PE & P device on an
>> ISP network. OSPF is pretty good in handling the core network routing while
>> BGP & EGP handle the last-mile routing between PE & CE devices. BGP & EGP
>> can run on top of OSPF. I came across this *article*
>> 
>> when
>> scrolling the web a while back and I still want to find out if am the only
>> one who thinks its a matter of choice between the two. Although there isn't
>> distinct 1:1 argument, it's good we discuss it here and figure out why one
>> prefer one over the other *(consider a huge flat network)**.* What say you
>> ladies and gentlemen?
>
> I've given a talk about this a couple of times since 2008. But our
> reasons are to choosing IS-IS are:

I don't think there is much of a debate to be had any more, the gap
between them is so small now (OSPFv3 and ISIS that is, no one would
deploy OSPFv2 now in greenfield right?):

>   * No requirement to home everything back to Area 0 (Virtual Links are
> evil).

This is a good point I think.

>   * Integrated IPv4/IPv6 protocol support in a single IGP implementation.

This is in OSPv3.

>   * Single level (L2) deployment at scale.

Single area 0 deployment at scale? Bit of a moot point unless you
compare a specific device model and specific code version in two
identical deployments, its not much to do with the protocol but the
vendor implementation and the brute force.

>   * Scalable TLV structure vs. Options structure for OSPFv2. OSPFv3
> employs a TLV structure, however.

OSPv3 has this.

>   * Inherent scaling features, e.g., iSPF, PRC, e.t.c. Some of these may
> not be available on all vendor implementations.

OSPF has these too.

> Ultimately, router CPU's are way faster now, and I could see a case for
> running a single-area OSPFv2. So I'd likely not be religious about
> forcing you down the IS-IS path.

Yeah this ^ I don't think there is a stronge case for either protocol.

Somenoe mentioned the AOL NANOG talk about migrating from OSPF to
ISIS. There was a NANOG talk recently-ish about someone migrating from
OSPF to BGP. There wasn't even a need for an IGP, BGP scalled better
for them (in the DC).

BGP these days supports PIC and BFD etc, how much longer to IGPs have? :)

James.

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 11:03, Randy Bush wrote:

>
> as painful as ospf

If I did run OSPF, I'd probably do it with a single area, likely OSPFv3
with IPv4 address family support. Kinky, but it is 2016...


>
> in a research rack with more than one router, i run is-is.

Good man :-)...

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Randy Bush]

> Running multi-level IS-IS means you need to plan your L1/L2
> intersections

as painful as ospf

in a research rack with more than one router, i run is-is.

randy

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 08:41, Wayne Bouchard wrote:

> This generally supports my own view that it depends on the topology
> and the real or potential scale/scope. In my experience, IS-IS is just
> all around better in a flat, highly interconnected environment such as
> an ISP or other broadly scaled network. If you have a very (almost
> exclusively) heirarchical structure and pretty good control over IP
> addressing and can use summarization effectively, then OSPF can make
> your core networking much simpler. On a small network that doesn't
> look to grow at leaps and bounds, I'd favor OSPF. On a large, complex
> network or a network that has the potential to grow without any sort
> of predefined structure (ie, more demand based), then IS-IS is
> probably your win.

I wouldn't base the choice necessarily on the size of the network,
although from experience, I'd always choose IS-IS for a large,
geographically-dispersed network.

What I mean to say is that I'd be happy running IS-IS on a tiny network,
as much as I'd run route reflectors in a 3-router network. There isn't
that much more effort to get it going compared to considering whether a
Mini or a dump truck should be used to take the kids to school every
morning.


>  Note that this doesn't factor in multiple IS-IS
> levels, something I don't have a great deal of experience with.
> Mostly, networks I've been associated with just run one great big,
> gigantic level 0, though they did also experiment with other
> configurations.

I've run multi-level IS-IS before. To be honest, I'd not recommend it.

There are enough features and knobs in IS-IS to quiet the chatter
associated with a single-level IS-IS deployment.

Running multi-level IS-IS means you need to plan your L1/L2
intersections, figure out what to do with the ATT Bit and look at Route
Leaking if you run MPLS (LDP hates route summarization).

Needless to say, the Area ID of the NET is more significant in L1/L2
IS-IS than in L2-only IS-IS, as this is what is used to control LSP
exchange between levels. This can get very complicated very fast in very
large networks. Yep, that's 3 "very's".

It's 2016, and any decent router has something-x86 going for it (or at
the very least, a reasonably quick non-x86 going for it). I'd stick to
single-level IS-IS. Which means L2-only, not L1-only - I know a network :-).

My only real issue with IS-IS is the ST and MT (Single Topology and
Multi-Topology) nuisance re: IPv6. Many vendors implement ST on turn-up,
meaning you need to manually configure the MT knob. This can be painful
when you haven't been clued up on MT, run an IPv4-only network and need
to enable IPv6. I've gone into a bit of detail on this in my talk that I
included in a previous post.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Wayne Bouchard]

This generally supports my own view that it depends on the topology
and the real or potential scale/scope. In my experience, IS-IS is just
all around better in a flat, highly interconnected environment such as
an ISP or other broadly scaled network. If you have a very (almost
exclusively) heirarchical structure and pretty good control over IP
addressing and can use summarization effectively, then OSPF can make
your core networking much simpler. On a small network that doesn't
look to grow at leaps and bounds, I'd favor OSPF. On a large, complex
network or a network that has the potential to grow without any sort
of predefined structure (ie, more demand based), then IS-IS is
probably your win. Note that this doesn't factor in multiple IS-IS
levels, something I don't have a great deal of experience with.
Mostly, networks I've been associated with just run one great big,
gigantic level 0, though they did also experiment with other
configurations.

-Wayne

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 07:59:12AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/Nov/16 19:12, Michael Bullut wrote:
> 
> > Greetings Team,
> >
> > ???While I haven't worked with IS-IS before but the only disadvantage I've
> > encountered with OSPF is that it is resource intensive on the router it is
> > running on which is why only one instance runs on any PE & P device on an
> > ISP network. OSPF is pretty good in handling the core network routing while
> > BGP & EGP handle the last-mile routing between PE & CE devices. BGP & EGP
> > can run on top of OSPF. I came across this *article*
> > 
> > when
> > scrolling the web a while back and I still want to find out if am the only
> > one who thinks its a matter of choice between the two. Although there isn't
> > distinct 1:1 argument, it's good we discuss it here and figure out why one
> > prefer one over the other *(consider a huge flat network)**.* What say you
> > ladies and gentlemen?
> 
> I've given a talk about this a couple of times since 2008. But our
> reasons are to choosing IS-IS are:
> 
>   * No requirement to home everything back to Area 0 (Virtual Links are
> evil).
> 
>   * Integrated IPv4/IPv6 protocol support in a single IGP implementation.
> 
>   * Single level (L2) deployment at scale.
> 
>   * Scalable TLV structure vs. Options structure for OSPFv2. OSPFv3
> employs a TLV structure, however.
> 
>   * Inherent scaling features, e.g., iSPF, PRC, e.t.c. Some of these may
> not be available on all vendor implementations.
> 
> If you're interested in reviewing the talk I gave on this, a lot more
> details is in there at:
> 
>
> http://www.apricot.net/apricot2009/images/lecture_files/isis_deployment.pdf
> 
> Ultimately, router CPU's are way faster now, and I could see a case for
> running a single-area OSPFv2. So I'd likely not be religious about
> forcing you down the IS-IS path.
> 
> Mark.
> 

---
Wayne Bouchard
w...@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 04:52, Josh Reynolds wrote:

> Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF.

Depends on the vendor.

Cisco have as many knobs for IS-IS as they do for OSPF.

Juniper, not so much.

Don't know about other vendors.

At any rate, many of these knobs are not part of the original protocol
spec., although they can be very useful when scaling.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 04:45, RT Parrish wrote:

> 1) Network Topology support - The differences between a single OSPF
> backbone area and a contiguous set of Level-2 adjacencies will occasionally
> be a deciding factor.

L2 IS-IS can be as chatty as single-area OSPF. That said, IS-IS has
native tools to reduce that chatter (like PRC, and iSPF), but to be
honest, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference given today's faster
router CPU's.

> 2) Feature Support on a per vendor basis - Some vendors will roll new
> features out in one or the other protocols prior to the other.  Segment
> Routing and some of its enhancements come to mind as being in ISIS first.

I've noticed that the delay between when IS-IS and/or OSPF pick up a
feature the other already has is reasonable. By the time an OSPF has
completed evaluating whether they need LFA, it would have been
implemented in the IGP.

I suppose back then, there was a much bigger between when features made
it between both protocols, but things seem to be on par nowadays.


> 3) Layer 2 adjacencies - I think someone already mentioned that you form
> adjacencies at layer 2 which also means that with a single adj you can
> support multiple protocols (v4/v6). OSPF would require two different
> instances to support both. Maybe good, maybe not. Depends on your desired
> level of isolation between the two.

OSPFv3 can support the advertisement of IPv4 prefixes. But you'd still
need an IPv6 link layer.


> 4) CPU performance is academic at this point - The SPF calculations in most
> networks would require next to no difference between the two protocols even
> if running both IPv4 and v6.

Agree.

>
> End of the day, use the right tool/vendor/technology for the right job.

Agree.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Nov/16 04:27, John Kristoff wrote:

>
> I've considered leaving IPv4 on OSPF and putting IPv6 on IS-IS, but I'm
> not sure it really matters.  It might be nice to get the experience on
> the resume, but that might not be a good justification to the network
> staff and management for a production network.

When I converted an OSPF network at $old_job to IS-IS back in 2011, the
NOC were not too pleased with the idea.

Took several workshops to reassure them that we didn't all need to move
to Mars if we did this. Suffice it to say, the migration went famously,
and considering it works well, they didn't even need to touch it at all
on an ongoing basis (not that OSPF needed hand-holding).

The resistance to move is mostly borne out of fear (and a bit of
laziness to learning something new). That can be said for pretty much
anything the network has never ran before that Engineering want to
implement. Giving them leadership does the trick.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

And yes, IS-IS not running over IP is also a great thing.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Nov/16 19:12, Michael Bullut wrote:

> Greetings Team,
>
> ​While I haven't worked with IS-IS before but the only disadvantage I've
> encountered with OSPF is that it is resource intensive on the router it is
> running on which is why only one instance runs on any PE & P device on an
> ISP network. OSPF is pretty good in handling the core network routing while
> BGP & EGP handle the last-mile routing between PE & CE devices. BGP & EGP
> can run on top of OSPF. I came across this *article*
> 
> when
> scrolling the web a while back and I still want to find out if am the only
> one who thinks its a matter of choice between the two. Although there isn't
> distinct 1:1 argument, it's good we discuss it here and figure out why one
> prefer one over the other *(consider a huge flat network)**.* What say you
> ladies and gentlemen?

I've given a talk about this a couple of times since 2008. But our
reasons are to choosing IS-IS are:

  * No requirement to home everything back to Area 0 (Virtual Links are
evil).

  * Integrated IPv4/IPv6 protocol support in a single IGP implementation.

  * Single level (L2) deployment at scale.

  * Scalable TLV structure vs. Options structure for OSPFv2. OSPFv3
employs a TLV structure, however.

  * Inherent scaling features, e.g., iSPF, PRC, e.t.c. Some of these may
not be available on all vendor implementations.

If you're interested in reviewing the talk I gave on this, a lot more
details is in there at:

   
http://www.apricot.net/apricot2009/images/lecture_files/isis_deployment.pdf

Ultimately, router CPU's are way faster now, and I could see a case for
running a single-area OSPFv2. So I'd likely not be religious about
forcing you down the IS-IS path.

Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Josh Reynolds]

Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF.

On Nov 9, 2016 8:47 PM, "RT Parrish"  wrote:

> I will definitely be looking up the notes from AOL that John referenced.
> But working for a vendor and getting insight from multiple ISPs, here are a
> few of the things that I hear most frequently:
>
> 1) Network Topology support - The differences between a single OSPF
> backbone area and a contiguous set of Level-2 adjacencies will occasionally
> be a deciding factor.
> 2) Feature Support on a per vendor basis - Some vendors will roll new
> features out in one or the other protocols prior to the other.  Segment
> Routing and some of its enhancements come to mind as being in ISIS first.
> 3) Layer 2 adjacencies - I think someone already mentioned that you form
> adjacencies at layer 2 which also means that with a single adj you can
> support multiple protocols (v4/v6). OSPF would require two different
> instances to support both. Maybe good, maybe not. Depends on your desired
> level of isolation between the two.
> 4) CPU performance is academic at this point - The SPF calculations in most
> networks would require next to no difference between the two protocols even
> if running both IPv4 and v6.
>
> End of the day, use the right tool/vendor/technology for the right job.
>
> Hope this helps,
> RT
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Michael Bullut  wrote:
>
> > Greetings Team,
> >
> > ​While I haven't worked with IS-IS before but the only disadvantage I've
> > encountered with OSPF is that it is resource intensive on the router it
> is
> > running on which is why only one instance runs on any PE & P device on an
> > ISP network. OSPF is pretty good in handling the core network routing
> while
> > BGP & EGP handle the last-mile routing between PE & CE devices. BGP & EGP
> > can run on top of OSPF. I came across this *article*
> >  > providers-still-prefer-is-is-over-ospf-when-designing-
> > large-flat-topologies/>
> > when
> > scrolling the web a while back and I still want to find out if am the
> only
> > one who thinks its a matter of choice between the two. Although there
> isn't
> > distinct 1:1 argument, it's good we discuss it here and figure out why
> one
> > prefer one over the other *(consider a huge flat network)**.* What say
> you
> > ladies and gentlemen?
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > Michael Bullut.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > *Cell:*
> > *+254 723 393 114.**Skype Name:* *Michael Bullut.*
> > *Twitter:*
> > * @Kipsang *
> > *Blog: http://www.kipsang.com/ *
> > *E-mail:* *m...@kipsang.com *
> >
> > *---*
> >
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[RT Parrish]

I will definitely be looking up the notes from AOL that John referenced.
But working for a vendor and getting insight from multiple ISPs, here are a
few of the things that I hear most frequently:

1) Network Topology support - The differences between a single OSPF
backbone area and a contiguous set of Level-2 adjacencies will occasionally
be a deciding factor.
2) Feature Support on a per vendor basis - Some vendors will roll new
features out in one or the other protocols prior to the other.  Segment
Routing and some of its enhancements come to mind as being in ISIS first.
3) Layer 2 adjacencies - I think someone already mentioned that you form
adjacencies at layer 2 which also means that with a single adj you can
support multiple protocols (v4/v6). OSPF would require two different
instances to support both. Maybe good, maybe not. Depends on your desired
level of isolation between the two.
4) CPU performance is academic at this point - The SPF calculations in most
networks would require next to no difference between the two protocols even
if running both IPv4 and v6.

End of the day, use the right tool/vendor/technology for the right job.

Hope this helps,
RT

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Michael Bullut  wrote:

> Greetings Team,
>
> ​While I haven't worked with IS-IS before but the only disadvantage I've
> encountered with OSPF is that it is resource intensive on the router it is
> running on which is why only one instance runs on any PE & P device on an
> ISP network. OSPF is pretty good in handling the core network routing while
> BGP & EGP handle the last-mile routing between PE & CE devices. BGP & EGP
> can run on top of OSPF. I came across this *article*
>  providers-still-prefer-is-is-over-ospf-when-designing-
> large-flat-topologies/>
> when
> scrolling the web a while back and I still want to find out if am the only
> one who thinks its a matter of choice between the two. Although there isn't
> distinct 1:1 argument, it's good we discuss it here and figure out why one
> prefer one over the other *(consider a huge flat network)**.* What say you
> ladies and gentlemen?
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Michael Bullut.
>
> ---
>
> *Cell:*
> *+254 723 393 114.**Skype Name:* *Michael Bullut.*
> *Twitter:*
> * @Kipsang *
> *Blog: http://www.kipsang.com/ *
> *E-mail:* *m...@kipsang.com *
>
> *---*
>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Randy Bush]

>> vi users prefer ospf
>> emacs users prefer is-is
> So that leaves EIGRP for the nano users?

teco

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[David Barak via NANOG]

> On Nov 9, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
> vi users prefer ospf
> emacs users prefer is-is
> 

So that leaves EIGRP for the nano users?

David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[John Kristoff]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:12:24 +
Michael Bullut  wrote:

> Although there isn't distinct 1:1 argument, it's good we discuss it
> here and figure out why one prefer one over the other *(consider a
> huge flat network)**.* What say you ladies and gentlemen?

I'm not sure it is worthy of an argument.  I think I've only ever heard
of anyone migrating from one to the other.  That was AOL presenting
their conversion from OSPF to IS-IS at NANOG a number of years ago:

  

The article you refer to more or less covers some of the major
differences, largely academic these days.  They are close enough
alike now that it is probably just best to use what you know or already
have running.

When I migrated a RIPv2 network to OSPF I don't remember if I
consciously choose it over IS-IS for any particular reason or, more
likely, just went with it because it seemed like the IETF-preferred way
to go. That would have been a dumb reason and later I kind of wish I
had used IS-IS, because of the security isolation at layer 2 and
relatively modest changes to support IPv6.  But I wouldn't go through
the trouble of changing it now.  There is no compelling reason.

I've considered leaving IPv4 on OSPF and putting IPv6 on IS-IS, but I'm
not sure it really matters.  It might be nice to get the experience on
the resume, but that might not be a good justification to the network
staff and management for a production network.

John

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Randy Bush]

vi users prefer ospf
emacs users prefer is-is

randy

OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Michael Bullut]

Greetings Team,

​While I haven't worked with IS-IS before but the only disadvantage I've
encountered with OSPF is that it is resource intensive on the router it is
running on which is why only one instance runs on any PE & P device on an
ISP network. OSPF is pretty good in handling the core network routing while
BGP & EGP handle the last-mile routing between PE & CE devices. BGP & EGP
can run on top of OSPF. I came across this *article*

when
scrolling the web a while back and I still want to find out if am the only
one who thinks its a matter of choice between the two. Although there isn't
distinct 1:1 argument, it's good we discuss it here and figure out why one
prefer one over the other *(consider a huge flat network)**.* What say you
ladies and gentlemen?

Warm regards,

Michael Bullut.

---

*Cell:*
*+254 723 393 114.**Skype Name:* *Michael Bullut.*
*Twitter:*
* @Kipsang *
*Blog: http://www.kipsang.com/ *
*E-mail:* *m...@kipsang.com *

*---*