OSPF vs IS-IS

[tomas.lynch at gmail.com (Tomas Lynch)]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Justin M. Streiner <
streiner at 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 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.
>>
>
> Agreed.  I did an OSPFv3 vs. IS-IS bake-off in my lab several months ago as
> part of an IPv6 rollout, and one of the key deciding factors in going with
> OSPFv3 over IS-IS was that our ops folks are much more familiar with OSPFv2.
>  While there are difference between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 in how they work, the
> learning curve is a lot less steep than going from OSPFv2 to IS-IS.
>
> jms
>
> Do not underestimate the power of ops engineers. Really is not that
difficult to learn ISIS and they can add it to their resume.


>
>  On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, William Cooper <wcooper02 at 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
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Stefan Fouant
>>> <sfouant at shortestpathfirst.net**> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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-IS is decoupled from IP making it less vulnerable to
>>>> attacks.
>>>>
>>>> Stefan Fouant
>>>> JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI
>>>> Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
>>>> http://www.shortestpathfirst.**net <http://www.shortestpathfirst.net>
>>>> http://www.twitter.com/sfouant
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 11, 2011, at 8:57 AM, CJ <cjinfantino at gmail.com> 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 over IS-IS.
>>>>> What does everyone think?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> CJ
>>>>>
>>>>> http://convergingontheedge.com <http://www.**convergingontheedge.com<http://www.convergingontheedge.com>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>