That's interesting and if true would represent a real change. Can you list the larger SPs in the US that use OSPF?
jy On 12/08/2011, at 10:40 PM, James Jones <ja...@freedomnet.co.nz> wrote: > I would not say ISIS is the prefered protocol. Most service providers I have > worked with use OSPF. Most networks outside of the US use it from what I have > seen and the larger SPs in the US do too. There must be a reason for that. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 12, 2011, at 8:23 AM, CJ <cjinfant...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You guys are making a lot of good points. >> >> I will check into the Doyle book to formulate an opinion. So, I am >> completely new to the SP environment and OSPF is what I have learned because >> I have ever only had experience in the enterprise. >> >> It seems that from this discussion, IS-IS is still a real, very viable >> option. So, IS-IS being preferred...realistically, what is the learning >> curve? >> >> >> CJ >> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM, jim deleskie <deles...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> If a network is big enough big / complex enough that you really need >>> to worry about performance of mesh groups or tweaking areas then its >>> big enough that having a noc eng page you out at 2am when there is an >>> issue doesn't really scale. I'm all for ISIS, if I was to build a >>> network from scratch I'd likely default to it. I'm just say, new >>> features or performance aside the knowledge of your team under you >>> will have much more impact on how your network runs then probably any >>> other factor. I've seen this time and time again when 'new tech' has >>> been introduced into networks, from vendors to protocols. Most every >>> time with engineers saying we have smart people they will learn it / >>> adjust. Almost every case of that turned into 6 mts of crap for both >>> ops and eng while the ops guys became clueful in the new tech, but as >>> a friend frequently says Your network, your choice. >>> >>> -jim >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jeffrey S. Young <yo...@jsyoung.net> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/08/2011, at 12:08 AM, CJ <cjinfant...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Awesome, I was thinking the same thing. Most experience is OSPF so it >>> only >>>>> makes sense. >>>>> >>>>> That is a good tip about OSPFv3 too. I will have to look more deeply >>> into >>>>> OSPFv3. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -CJ >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:34 AM, jim deleskie <deles...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Having run both on some good sized networks, I can tell you to run >>>>>> what your ops folks know best. We can debate all day the technical >>>>>> merits of one v another, but end of day, it always comes down to your >>>>>> most jr ops eng having to make a change at 2 am, you need to design >>>>>> for this case, if your using OSPF today and they know OSPF I'd say >>>>>> stick with it to reduce the chance of things blowing up at 2am when >>>>>> someone tries to 'fix' something else. >>>>>> >>>>>> -jim >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, William Cooper <wcoope...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I'm totally in concurrence with Stephan's point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Couple of things to consider: a) deciding to migrate to either ISIS or >>>>>>> OSPFv3 from another protocol is still migrating to a new protocol >>>>>>> and b) even in the case of migrating to OSPFv3, there are fairly >>>>>>> significant changes in behavior from OSPFv2 to be aware of (most >>>>>>> notably >>>>>>> authentication, but that's fodder for another conversation). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Tony >>>> >>>> This topic is a 'once a month' on NANOG, I'm sure we could check >>>> the archives for some point-in-time research but I'm curious to learn >>>> if anyone maintains statistics? >>>> >>>> It would be interesting to see statistics on how many service providers >>> run >>>> either protocol. IS-IS has, for some years, been the de facto choice for >>> SP's >>>> and as a result the vendor and standardisation community 'used to' >>> develop >>>> SP features more often for IS-IS. IS-IS was, therefore, more 'mature' >>> than OSPF >>>> for SP's. I wonder if this is still the case? >>>> >>>> For me, designing an IGP with IS-IS is much easier than it is with OSPF. >>>> Mesh groups are far easier to plan (more straightforward) easier to >>> change >>>> than OSPF areas. As for junior noc staff touching much of anything to do >>>> with an ISP's IGP at 2am, wake me up instead. >>>> >>>> jy >>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> CJ >> >> http://convergingontheedge.com <http://www.convergingontheedge.com> >
