Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

On 12/Nov/16 16:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > I have not studied OSPFv3 in detail but it appears that only IPv6 link > local addresses are used. Since that can not be routed, I do not think > OSPFv3 exposes anything to the Internet. I would probably go with > OSPFv3 if I had to configure a

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Den 11/11/2016 kl. 11.20 skrev Mark Tinka: On 11/Nov/16 12:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote: No filters. There are just no routes that will take a network packet that arrive on an interface in VRF internet and move it to an interface in VRF default without adding a MPLS header to mark the VRF.

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

On 11/Nov/16 21:34, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Has the name been a problem for you? Asking vendors about support > must be a bit awkward these days. Why do you reckon? Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

* Mark Tinka: > I've given a talk about this a couple of times since 2008. But our > reasons are to choosing IS-IS are: Has the name been a problem for you? Asking vendors about support must be a bit awkward these days.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Hi, What IGP features do you need, and for what reason? Cheers, mh⁣​Le 10 nov. 2016, à 23:04, Josh Reynolds a écrit: 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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

My first post: 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 all > the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

In my experience/personal opinion, compared to OSPF2/3, in a large ISP, ISIS: - has simpler and better, less bloated code. Think ISIS on Juniper. Think FreeBSD vs Linux. - is more modular to introduce new features. - has certain knobs which makes it a bit more useful for ISP (LSP lifetime/Max

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

On 11/Nov/16 12:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > No filters. There are just no routes that will take a network packet that > arrive on an interface in VRF internet and move it to an interface in VRF > default without adding a MPLS header to mark the VRF. With the MPLS header > the packet type is no

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Den 11. nov. 2016 06.41 skrev "Mark Tinka" : > > > > 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

Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

> > 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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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.

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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?

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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,

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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? > > -- >

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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!

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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)...

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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: >>

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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,

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

> 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)

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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,

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

> 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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

>> 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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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 >>

Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

> 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

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

On 10/Nov/16 08:41, Wayne Bouchard wrote: > This generally supports my own view that it depends on the topology > and the real or potential scale/scope. In my experience, IS-IS is just > all around better in a flat, highly interconnected environment such as > an ISP or other broadly scaled

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

This generally supports my own view that it depends on the topology and the real or potential scale/scope. In my experience, IS-IS is just all around better in a flat, highly interconnected environment such as an ISP or other broadly scaled network. If you have a very (almost exclusively)

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

On 10/Nov/16 04:52, Josh Reynolds wrote: > Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF. Depends on the vendor. Cisco have as many knobs for IS-IS as they do for OSPF. Juniper, not so much. Don't know about other vendors. At any rate, many of these knobs are not part

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

On 10/Nov/16 04:45, RT Parrish wrote: > 1) Network Topology support - The differences between a single OSPF > backbone area and a contiguous set of Level-2 adjacencies will occasionally > be a deciding factor. L2 IS-IS can be as chatty as single-area OSPF. That said, IS-IS has native tools to

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

On 10/Nov/16 04:27, John Kristoff wrote: > > I've considered leaving IPv4 on OSPF and putting IPv6 on IS-IS, but I'm > not sure it really matters. It might be nice to get the experience on > the resume, but that might not be a good justification to the network > staff and management for a

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

And yes, IS-IS not running over IP is also a great thing. Mark.

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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 only one instance runs on any PE & P device on an > ISP

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF. On Nov 9, 2016 8:47 PM, "RT Parrish" wrote: > I will definitely be looking up the notes from AOL that John referenced. > But working for a vendor and getting insight from multiple ISPs, here are a > few of

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

I will definitely be looking up the notes from AOL that John referenced. But working for a vendor and getting insight from multiple ISPs, here are a few of the things that I hear most frequently: 1) Network Topology support - The differences between a single OSPF backbone area and a contiguous

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

>> vi users prefer ospf >> emacs users prefer is-is > So that leaves EIGRP for the nano users? teco

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

> On Nov 9, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > vi users prefer ospf > emacs users prefer is-is > So that leaves EIGRP for the nano users? David Barak Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:12:24 + Michael Bullut wrote: > Although there isn't distinct 1:1 argument, it's good we discuss it > here and figure out why one prefer one over the other *(consider a > huge flat network)**.* What say you ladies and gentlemen? I'm not sure it is

Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

vi users prefer ospf emacs users prefer is-is randy

OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

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 only one instance runs on any PE & P device on an ISP network. OSPF is pretty good in handling the core