Re: IGP choice

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Dave Bell wrote: > On 22 October 2015 at 19:41, Mark Tinka wrote: >> The "everything must connect to Area 0" requirement of OSPF was limiting >> for me back in 2008. > > I'm unsure if this is a serious argument, but its

Re: IGP choice

On 30/Oct/15 15:34, Matthew Petach wrote: > It is rather nice that IS-IS does not require level-2 to be > contiguous, unlike area 0 in OSPF. It is a valid topology > in IS-IS to have different level-2 areas connected by > level-1 areas, though you do have to be somewhat > careful about what

Re: IGP choice

>> i may have missed it, but one of my fave features of is-is is that it is >> a link-local non-ip protocol. hard to disrupt/attack remotely. > This is overlooked far too often IMNSHO. As is the comparison of > error/attack surface of "feature-rich" OSPF against "lean" IS-IS. i just wish the

Re: IGP choice

Hi Matthew, Thank a lot for your answer. This help me to understand, and make more sense to me :-). Thanks, -Marcel On 23.10.2015 18:31, Matthew Petach wrote: On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:41 AM, marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr wrote: sorry for that, but the only one I've

Re: IGP choice

i may have missed it, but one of my fave features of is-is is that it is a link-local non-ip protocol. hard to disrupt/attack remotely. randy

Re: IGP choice

Subject: IGP choice Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 06:57:01PM +0200 Quoting marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr (marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr): > Hi everyone, > > Anybody from Yahoo to share experience on IGP choice ? > IS-IS vs OSPF, why did you switch from one to the other, for what reason ? > Same question

RE: IGP choice

ackle most of the same stuff just in different ways. -D -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:31 AM To: marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IGP choice On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:

Re: IGP choice

On 23 October 2015 at 08:31, Mark Tinka wrote: Hey, > Quagga is an example of a case where IS-IS is seriously lagging behind > OSPF to the point of not being useable at all. I believe this is because you need 802.3 (as opposed to EthernetII) and rudimentary CLNS

Re: IGP choice

On 23/Oct/15 10:48, Saku Ytti wrote: > I believe this is because you need 802.3 (as opposed to EthernetII) > and rudimentary CLNS implementation, both which are very annoying from > programmer point of view. I'm not really sure what the hold-up is, but I know Mikael, together with the good

Re: IGP choice

On 23 October 2015 at 11:54, Mark Tinka wrote: Hey, > Well, on the basis that an attack is made easier if you are running > IS-IS on a vulnerable interface, in theory, an attack would be highly > difficult if a vulnerable interface were not running IS-IS to begin with.

Re: IGP choice

by having multiple areas, therefore ABR which deny routers and network LSA, you introduce summarization (ABR only send summary LSA, mean subnet info, not topology info) in your network. Thus you loose informations and do not have a complete topology of your network. I guess MPLS/TE prefer to

Re: IGP choice

On 23/Oct/15 11:00, marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr wrote: > by having multiple areas, therefore ABR which deny routers and network > LSA, you introduce summarization (ABR only send summary LSA, mean > subnet info, not topology info) in your network. > Thus you loose informations and do not have a

Re: IGP choice

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Anybody from Yahoo to share experience on IGP choice ? > IS-IS vs OSPF, why did you switch from one to the other, for what reason ? > Same question could apply to other ISP, I'd like to

Re: IGP choice

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:41 AM, marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr wrote: > sorry for that, but the only one I've heard about switching his core IGP is > Yahoo. I've no precision, and it's really interest me. > I know that there had OSPF in the DC area, and ISIS in the core,

Re: IGP choice

On 23/Oct/15 23:02, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > There is running code now for IETF HOMENET using Quagga that speaks > IS-IS over IPv6 (using IP proto 124) if you want to, it's configurable > per-interface. > > I do not know at this time what the status is for mainline Quagga > IS-IS, but

Re: IGP choice

> A lot of carriers use ISIS in the core so they can make use of the' > overload bit' with a 'set-overload-bit on-startup wait-for-bgp". Keeps > them from black holing Traffic while BGP reconverges., when you have > millions of routes to converge it can take forever. It's also a really >

Re: IGP choice

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Mark Tinka wrote: I'm not really sure what the hold-up is, but I know Mikael, together with the good folks at netDEF (Martin and Alistair) are working hard on fixing these issues. While I have not had much time to provide them with feedback on their progress, it is high

Re: IGP choice

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Pablo Lucena wrote: A lot of carriers use ISIS in the core so they can make use of the' overload bit' with a 'set-overload-bit on-startup wait-for-bgp". Keeps them from black holing Traffic while BGP reconverges., when you have millions of routes to converge it can take

Re: IGP choice

sorry for that, but the only one I've heard about switching his core IGP is Yahoo. I've no precision, and it's really interest me. I know that there had OSPF in the DC area, and ISIS in the core, and decide to switch the core from ISIS to OSPF. Why spend so much time/risk to switch from ISIS to

RE: IGP choice

Just use rip for *everything* Problem solved! -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:41 AM To: marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IGP choice On 22/Oct/15 18:57, marcel.durega

RE: IGP choice

And Windows Server for your routing platform of choice! -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Damien Burke Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:12 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: IGP choice Just use rip for *everything* Problem solved

Re: IGP choice

On 22/Oct/15 21:35, Dave Bell wrote: > I'm unsure if this is a serious argument, but its such a poor point > today. Everything has to be connected to a level 2 in IS-IS. If you > want a flat area 0 network in OSPF, go nuts. As long as you are > sensible about what you put in your IGP, both

Re: IGP choice

On 22/Oct/15 18:57, marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Anybody from Yahoo to share experience on IGP choice ? > IS-IS vs OSPF, why did you switch from one to the other, for what > reason ? > Same question could apply to other ISP, I'd like to heard some > international

Re: IGP choice

* marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr (marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr) [Thu 22 Oct 2015, 18:57 CEST]: Anybody from Yahoo to share experience on IGP choice ? What a weird way to limit your audience. This is NANOG, not Yahoo. Otherwise, http://userpages.umbc.edu/~vijay/work/ppt/oi.pdf -- Niels.

Re: IGP choice

Hi, > The differences between the two protocols are so small, that people > really grasp at straws when 'proving' that one is better over the > other. 'IS-IS doesn't work over IP, so its more secure'. 'IS-IS uses > TLVs so new features are quicker to implement'. While these may be > vaguely valid

Re: IGP choice

On 22 October 2015 at 19:41, Mark Tinka wrote: > The "everything must connect to Area 0" requirement of OSPF was limiting > for me back in 2008. I'm unsure if this is a serious argument, but its such a poor point today. Everything has to be connected to a level 2 in IS-IS.

Re: IGP choice

On 22 October 2015 at 22:57, wrote: > - Needing OSPFv3 for IPv6 when you're alredy running OSPFv2 for IPv4 > is less than optimal. I believe nowadays several vendors support > OSPFv3 for both IPv4 and IPv6 - but this is not universal. > Our configuration is MPLS VPNv6 for

Re: IGP choice

I don't have all the details because I don't fully understand it, but I've heard that if you're running an MPLS/RSVP core, you can only use a single OSPF area. This introduces a scalability ceiling. On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Dave Bell wrote: > On 22 October 2015 at

Re: IGP choice

It comes down to personal preference now days in my opinion. Both ISIS and OSPFv3 allow you to run multi-af using the same protocol. Both of them dont run full SPF when a stub network is added/removed (unlike OSPFv2). How about vendor support? Perhaps ISIS has the upper hand here since its been

Re: IGP choice

You still have separate tables for IPv4 and IPv6 with isis and multi-topology still runs 2 spf calculations. On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:05 PM, wrote: > Hi, > > > The differences between the two protocols are so small, that people > > really grasp at straws when

Re: IGP choice

"marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr" writes: > Hi everyone, > > Anybody from Yahoo to share experience on IGP choice ? > IS-IS vs OSPF, why did you switch from one to the other, for what reason ? > Same question could apply to other ISP, I'd like to heard some > international

Re: IGP choice

> > The differences between the two protocols are so small, that people > > really grasp at straws when 'proving' that one is better over the > > other. 'IS-IS doesn't work over IP, so its more secure'. 'IS-IS uses > > TLVs so new features are quicker to implement'. While these may be > > vaguely

Re: IGP choice

y you see more OSPF than IS-IS(except of a few large one's States-side) is more of a history-lession. ./Randy - Original Message - From: Damien Burke <dam...@supremebytes.com> To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:12 PM S

Re: IGP choice

On 22/Oct/15 23:22, Bill Blackford wrote: > I don't have all the details because I don't fully understand it, but > I've heard that if you're running an MPLS/RSVP core, you can only use > a single OSPF area. This introduces a scalability ceiling. Not true. The rate of development of advanced