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
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 e
> > 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 redist
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 a
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 I
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 Juni
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.
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?
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. tha
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 addr
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
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 t
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 an
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 OSPFv2
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 interac
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
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
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, 2
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?
>
> --
> Tim
>
> On Thu, Nov 10,
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!
>>
>> "Support for OSPFv3 and IS-IS is variou
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 IPv6 have known
> issues.
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 support in a bunch of d
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)...
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 talking about. As far as al
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 origin
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 th
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 hand-
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 oth
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
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 multiple
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; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: OSPFv3 wi
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 wh
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, "NA
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 environmen
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
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 i
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
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:
>> Juniper of their own mer
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 L3VPN
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
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, Arista, Avaya, etc yo
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 of the
> whitebox hard
> 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) Junip
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 wrote:
>
> Vendor supp
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 you've chosen to focus on such a small one. He
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 NANOG-related note...please tel
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 trea
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 exist
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, then
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
O
> 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 c
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 IS-IS.
>> 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 available,
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
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
>> running on which is why
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
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.
> 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
58 matches
Mail list logo
