> -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? Some
On 8/17/11 9:50 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> 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,
On Aug 17, 2011 6:58 AM, "Justin M. Streiner"
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> 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
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
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
> 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
, 2011 5:24 AM
To: jim deleskie
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Jeffrey S. Young
Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
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
On 08/16/2011 12:55 PM, Tomas Lynch wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Justin M. Streiner<
strei...@cluebyfour.org> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, jim deleskie 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
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Justin M. Streiner <
strei...@cluebyfour.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, jim deleskie 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 anothe
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 21:11, Vinny Abello wrote:
> One of my favorite features in IS-IS is the ability to set the overload
> bit during maintenance. The effect is the router on which you set it
> isn't seen by any other devices in the topology as a transit path, but
> you can still reach the rou
On 8/11/2011 10:19 AM, Jason Duerstock wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM, CJ wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>> Is there any reason to run IS-IS over OSPF in the SP core? Currently, we
>> are running IS-IS but we are redesigning our core and now would be a good
>> time to switch. I would like to swit
On 13/08/2011, at 10:48 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> That's interesting and if true would represent a real change. Can you
>> list the larger SPs in the US that use OSPF?
>
> at&t
>
> is-is in ntt, sprint, verizon, ...
>
> randy
>
AT&T's backbone is the old SBC backbone? Finding OSPF here do
On (2011-08-13 22:44 +1000), Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
> That's interesting and if true would represent a real change. Can you list
> the larger SPs in the US that use OSPF?
AT&T, L3?
Anyhow I fully agree with the sentiment that in eu/us markets most SP rock
ISIS. At one time when I was shopping
> That's interesting and if true would represent a real change. Can you
> list the larger SPs in the US that use OSPF?
at&t
is-is in ntt, sprint, verizon, ...
randy
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 wrote:
> I would not say ISIS is the prefered protocol. Most service providers I have
> worked with use OSPF. Most networks outside of
On 8/12/11 8:29 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
I thought I'd chime in from my perspective, being the head router
jockey for a bunch of relatively small networks. I still find that
many routers have support for OSPF but not IS-IS. That, plus the fact
that most of these networks were based on OSPF befor
I thought I'd chime in from my perspective, being the head router
jockey for a bunch of relatively small networks. I still find that
many routers have support for OSPF but not IS-IS. That, plus the fact
that most of these networks were based on OSPF before I took charge of
them, in the absence of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The learning curve isn't that big IMHO. However, it's all about comfort.
You should never design a network because "someone else does it this
way". While you can certainly take ideas into account about the WHY
their network looks that way, you need
On 8/12/2011 8:40 AM, James Jones 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.
Actually, i strongly d
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 08:23 -0400, CJ wrote:
> So, IS-IS being preferred...realistically, what is the learning
> curve?
Low, IMO. If you know EIGRP/OSPF, you'll have no trouble picking-up
IS-IS. Took me a few hours in a Cisco lab @ Uni to have it all
worked-out (interestingly that was about all th
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 wrote:
> Y
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, v
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
On 12/08/2011, at 12:08 AM, CJ 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 wr
On Aug 11, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is
>> due to the fact that IS-IS is decoupled from IP making it less
>> vulnerable to attacks.
>
> how about simpler and more stable?
not rooted to a particular area.
supports mo
On 8/11/2011 8:16 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
I would encourage you to ask the opposite question: " Is there any
reason to run OSPF over IS-IS in the SP core?"
And the answer would be... probably not. There is not really a good
technical reason to run OSPF over IS-IS in the SP core.
You might have
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> how about simpler and more stable?
ISIS is also decoupled from IP making it more robust and
flexible/future-proof, as in adaptible to
new protocols -- IP connectivity is not required for ISIS nodes to
discover and associate with
L2 connect
I'll go with that... And one other thing... Traditionally it has been easier
for developers to add new features to IS-IS because of the structure and
flexibility of TLVs, whereas OSPF required the design of entirely new LSA types
to support similar capabilities... I guess this has become less of
> The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is
> due to the fact that IS-IS is decoupled from IP making it less
> vulnerable to attacks.
how about simpler and more stable?
randy
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM, CJ wrote:
> Hey all,
> Is there any reason to run IS-IS over OSPF in the SP core? Currently, we
> are running IS-IS but we are redesigning our core and now would be a good
> time to switch. I would like to switch to OSPF, mostly because of
> familiarity with OSPF
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 wrote:
> Having run both on some good sized networks, I can tell
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, jim deleskie 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, y
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 usi
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
Well up until not too long ago, to support IPv6 you would run OSPFv3 and for
IPv4 you would run OSPFv2, making IS-IS more attractive, but that is no longer
the case with support for IPv4 NLRI in OSPFv3.
The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is due to the
fact that IS
On Sep 12, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Fouant, Stefan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Cord MacLeod [mailto:cordmacl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 9:50 PM
To: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP
I'd also add that ISIS supports
> -Original Message-
> From: Cord MacLeod [mailto:cordmacl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 9:50 PM
> To: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP
>
> I'd also add that ISIS supports IPv6 through the
On Sep 11, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I seem to get the impression that isis is preferred in the core. Any
reasons why folks dont prefer to go with ospf?
a bit harder to attack clnp (is-is) than ip (ospf)
is-is a bit simpler to configure, though you can get a sick as you
want. but d
71.434.5656 ▫ Mobile: +1.202.210.2075 ▫ GPG ID: 0xB5E3803D ▫
stefan.fou...@neustar.biz
- Original Message -
From: Glen Kent
To: Randy Bush
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Fri Sep 11 20:35:27 2009
Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP
I seem to get the impression that isis is preferred in t
> I seem to get the impression that isis is preferred in the core. Any
> reasons why folks dont prefer to go with ospf?
a bit harder to attack clnp (is-is) than ip (ospf)
is-is a bit simpler to configure, though you can get a sick as you
want. but don't.
a bit simpler to code, so worked and was
I seem to get the impression that isis is preferred in the core. Any
reasons why folks dont prefer to go with ospf?
Glen
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Unless you want your customers to have very substantial control over
>> your internal network, don't use an SPF IGP like
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 07:56:14PM -0500, Clue Store wrote:
> Most of my staff are still under the impression in Cisco land that the
> "network 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" statement injects than network into OSPF,
> when it simply turns on OSPF for the interfaces that are in that network.
So most of y
> Configure eBGP from your edge to the client edge using
> private-AS. Since I already have copy/paste templates (thanks
> to RANCID), I make it a habit to ensure filters are at both
> ends. Goes without saying that
> BCP-38 is followed, and strict is deployed everywhere possible.
>
> peer-grou
Clue Store wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Most of my staff are still under the impression in
Cisco land that the "network 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" statement injects that
network into OSPF, when it simply turns on OSPF for the interfaces that are
in that network. I'm really glad to see Cisco that ma
Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> FWIW, we use BGP to our multihomed customers (even when we manage the
> CPE), using a private AS. OSPF doesn't have the right toolset to
> provide protection for inter-network route propogation, and the risk
> of some customer's CPE screwing up you routing is just too high t
> Am I alone in my view that BGP is _far_ more simple and
> straight-forward than OSPF
>that ospf has become exceedingly complex, and all that results thereof.
I couldn't agree more. Most of my staff are still under the impression in
Cisco land that the "network 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" statement
> Am I alone in my view that BGP is _far_ more simple and
> straight-forward than OSPF
this is a very telling statement in a number of ways.
that ospf has become exceedingly complex, and all that results thereof.
that both are known for their complexity.
randy
I think you misunderstood me. You definitely need prefix filters on
the *provider* side, but the CPE doesn't necessarily need them as the
impact is hopefully limited to that particular customer. They're
always better of course.
GG
On 8/20/09, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:47:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:47:14AM -0500, Clue Store wrote:
> 99% of all of our customer CPE is not managed by the customer, so that
> leaves it up to me to decide what to run to them.
And then you run into the customer who thinks it's better to use a CPE
of his own, breaks into the CPE to read yo
FWIW, we use BGP to our multihomed customers (even when we manage the
CPE), using a private AS. OSPF doesn't have the right toolset to
provide protection for inter-network route propogation, and the risk
of some customer's CPE screwing up you routing is just too high to go
naked. A basic CPE BGP co
> The only issue with using ebgp is getting enough of my
> staff that actually understand bgp to the point where they
> can deploy it themselves without having to get me involved on
> every install. I think I can make this pretty cookie-cutter
> config to start off and then work from there.
F
Thanks again for all of the replies on and off list. As I stated earlier, I
didn't not think IGP was the protocol of choice for running to customers,
i've just been to many different houses that do actually do this.
99% of all of our customer CPE is not managed by the customer, so that
leaves it u
Clue Store said the following on 20/8/09 01:12 :
>
> I know this has been discussed probably many times on this list, but I was
> looking for some specifics about what others are doing in the following
> situations.
Discussed on list, presented in tutorials, how much more advice is
actually requir
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:58:01PM -0500, Clue Store wrote:
[snip]
> would like to go with , but I have had some in the industry say this is not
> as good as running an IGP with the customer.
Name and shame. TTBOMK, no-one who thought walking that road was a
Good Idea did so for long after start
On Aug 20, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
Do not EVER run an SPF routing protocol with your customer.
I don't generally like 'me, too', posts, but Ivan's advice here cannot
be overstated; this way lies madness.
-
Do not EVER run an SPF routing protocol with your customer. They can insert
anything they want into it (due to configuration mistake, malicious intent
or third-party hijacking) and your whole network (or at least the other
customers) will be affected.
Just to give you a few examples:
* They could
> Unless you want your customers to have very substantial control over
> your internal network, don't use an SPF IGP like ospf or is-is.
with your customer ^
i know that's what you meant, but i thought it worth making it very
explicit.
practice safe
On 19 Aug 2009, at 16:12, Clue Store wrote:
I would like to run an IGP (currently OSPF) to our customers that
are multi-homed in a non-mpls environment. They are multi-homed with
small prefixes that are swipped from my ARIN allocations.
[...]
Customers do, err, interesting and creative thin
> Keep the opinions coming guys.
there are certainly many opinions on this subject. However, the most
important factor is - how flexible you wish to be? As you correctly
point out, this is not an issue of what protocol are you going to be
running inside your network. So, "IGP" is not an issue.
Th
Thanks for all the replies so far. Just to clarify, I am in the small
ISP/Hosted services business. I was fortunate to inherit the current setup
of OSPF to the multi-homed customers. As i stated earlier, I would like to
run an IGP, what I really meant was I would like to run a routing protocol
that
On 19/08/2009 16:12, Clue Store wrote:
I would like to run an IGP (currently OSPF) to our customers that are
multi-homed in a non-mpls environment.
Unless you want your customers to have very substantial control over your
internal network, don't use an SPF IGP like ospf or is-is. You really
Clue Store wrote:
I have also seen others going to private AS and running eBGP. This seems a
bit much, but if it works, i'd make the move to it as I like bgp the most
(all of the BGP knobs give me the warm and fuzzies :).
Upon previous advice I've received from large ISPs, I shifted to ISIS to
Sorry, not OSPFv3. IPv6 thoughts dancing in my head. OSPF-VRF as most of you
probably interpret.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Clue Store wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I know this has been discussed probably many times on this list, but I was
> looking for some specifics about what others are doing i
63 matches
Mail list logo
