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

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

Re: OSPFv3 with IPSec between Cisco and Juniper gears

Yes that was it... sorry for the noise. Now the IPSec SA is up and the neighbors are stuck in ExStart state, but that's another story. From: David Hubbard Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 22:02 To: Philippe Bonvin;

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

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

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

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

Re: OSPFv3 with IPSec between Cisco and Juniper gears

Wouldn’t you want to use hexadecimal instead of ascii-text, since that would match what the Cisco is asking for? I’m just throwing this out there, I’m not familiar with Juniper but their docs seem to suggest that using hex will cause it to ask for 40 hex chars. David On 11/10/16, 3:14 PM,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking Google reverse DNS delegation contact

Does anyone here happen to know who at Google I should be talking to if I want to ask a question about their reverse DNS services? I'd just like to ask someone there why anyone at Google thought that it would be a Good Idea for Google to provide reverse DNS services for the 204.8.136.0/21 IP

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

AS30186 - Squatted or not? You be the judge.

I kinda messed up the last time I posted something here about possible IP address block squatting, so I'm not going to make any definitive assertions regarding conclusion this time. I'm just going to lay out the facts and let all of you good folks decide for yourselves. AS30186 is registered to

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

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

Re: Spitballing IoT Security

This is, amongst other things, an epidemiological problem. We've known through practical experience since 1989 that worms can spread at the speed of light. And so neither an auto-update process nor BCP 38 filtering alone will stop infection. There may be ways like MUD to slow an infection, but

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

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

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

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.

NEVERMIND! (was: Seeking Google reverse DNS delegation contact)

My profuse apologies to everyone. It seems that Google is not in fact involved in any way with providing reverse DNS for the 204.8.136.0/21 IP address block. I was deceived into believing it was by some unusual trickey on the part of the spammer-controlled name servers ns1.saversagreeable.com

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

> > 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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? > > -- >

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

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

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

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

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

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)...

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

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!

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

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

OSPFv3 with IPSec between Cisco and Juniper gears

Hello folks, Quick question about incompatibility between Cisco and Juniper gears. Without IPSec, OSPFv3 is working as expected. I'm trying to configure IPSec authentification of OSPFv3 between a Juniper SRX and a Cisco router but it seems that they didn't agree to a common key length. Can

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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.

JP Morgan contact

Would anyone from JP Morgan just so happen to be lurking on the list? If so, would you mind contacting me off-list regarding a reachability issue that some of my customers are experiencing with your website(s), specifically jpmpb.com. Thanks Tom

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

>> 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

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

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

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

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 >>

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

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?

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,

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

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

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

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

Re: Here we go again.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > There are plenty of reasons for thinking people to be terrified today. > I don't know why you've chosen to focus on such a small one. Here's a > bigger one: > > http://bit.ly/2fTdmiG Ok--so on a somewhat

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

> 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)

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

> 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?

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

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

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,

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

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: Here we go again.

https://youtu.be/Yi_2020LJQo On Nov 10, 2016 18:27, "Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG" wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette > wrote: > > There are plenty of reasons for thinking people to be terrified today. > > I don't know why

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

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

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

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

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

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: >>