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 <cjinfant...@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 <deles...@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 <yo...@jsyoung.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2011, at 12:08 AM, CJ <cjinfant...@gmail.com> 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 <deles...@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 <wcoope...@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' >> 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>