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 <james@freedomnet.co.nz> 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.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 12, 2011, at 8:23 AM, CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com> wrote:
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, very viable option. So, IS-IS being preferred...realistically, what is the learning curve?
CJ
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> wrote:
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 likely default to it. I'm just say, new features or performance aside the knowledge of your team under you will have much more impact on how your network runs then probably any other factor. I've seen this time and time again when 'new tech' has been introduced into networks, from vendors to protocols. Most every time with engineers saying we have smart people they will learn it / adjust. Almost every case of that turned into 6 mts of crap for both ops and eng while the ops guys became clueful in the new tech, but as a friend frequently says Your network, your choice.
-jim
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jeffrey S. Young <young@jsyoung.net> wrote:
On 12/08/2011, at 12:08 AM, CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com> wrote:
Awesome, I was thinking the same thing. Most experience is OSPF so it
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 <deleskie@gmail.com> 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.
-jim
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:29 AM, William Cooper <wcooper02@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
This topic is a 'once a month' on NANOG, I'm sure we could check the archives for some point-in-time research but I'm curious to learn if anyone maintains statistics?
It would be interesting to see statistics on how many service providers run either protocol. IS-IS has, for some years, been the de facto choice for SP's and as a result the vendor and standardisation community 'used to' develop SP features more often for IS-IS. IS-IS was, therefore, more 'mature'
only than OSPF
for SP's. I wonder if this is still the case?
For me, designing an IGP with IS-IS is much easier than it is with OSPF. Mesh groups are far easier to plan (more straightforward) easier to change than OSPF areas. As for junior noc staff touching much of anything to do with an ISP's IGP at 2am, wake me up instead.
jy
>
-- CJ
http://convergingontheedge.com <http://www.convergingontheedge.com>