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 <m...@geordish.org> wrote: > On 22 October 2015 at 19:41, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> 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. 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 IS-IS and OSPF scale > very well. > > 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 arguments, they don't hold much water. If you don't > secure your routers to bad actors forming OSPF adjacencies with you, > you're doing something wrong.Who is running code that is so bleeding > edge that feature X might be available for IS-IS, but not OSPF? > > Chose whichever you and your operational team are most comfortable > with, and run with it. > > Regards, > Dave > -- Bill Blackford Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.....
