> -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] > Sent: 17 August 2011 14:52 > To: Paul > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS > > > What would you rather rely on at 3am in the morning when things are > > breaking? Someone who has just learned IS-IS or someone who already > > has good experience with OSPF? > > what would you rather rely on at three in the morning when things are > breaking, someone who has just learned OSPF or someone who already > has good experience with IS-IS? > > this seems a silly reversal until you realize that OSPF is > significantly > more complex and thus harder. > > randy
Indeed. Does it really take that long to become familiar enough with IS-IS to support it in most situations? It really is not that difficult. I brought our ops people suitable up to speed with IS-IS over about one week of some lab work in their spare time and a few chats over a whiteboard. A couple of times perhaps they called me over an issue, but since then, I have not heard anything from any of them about it. I guess it comes down to the quality of people you employ. But really, if they get OSPF then IS-IS is not hard to grasp. -- Leigh Porter ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
