OSPF vs ISIS
It looks to me that everybody prefers OSPF in our company, just wondering any reasons that we do not want to use ISIS? Thanks Kent __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF vs ISIS
I suggest picking up the Dr.William Parkhurst book on OSPF for further detail. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Kent > Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 12:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: OSPF vs ISIS > > > It looks to me that everybody prefers OSPF in our > company, just wondering any reasons that we do not > want to use ISIS? > > Thanks > > Kent > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > http://photos.yahoo.com > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF vs ISIS
>It looks to me that everybody prefers OSPF in our >company, just wondering any reasons that we do not >want to use ISIS? > >Thanks > >Kent > For enterprise networks, there is no particular benefit to using ISIS. Many of the large ISPs do use it, in many cases for historical reasons. There are some cases where ISIS may have less overhead on the router than OSPF. Several vendors are deploying traffic engineering first with ISIS, but that is as much because their initial ISP customers have ISIS reasons as anything else. I'll be doing an ISIS tutorial next week at NANOG, and it will be posted under the notes for the June 2000 meeting at www.nanog.org On a practical certification basis, anyone that's aiming for the ISP market should know this protocol. ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: OSPF vs ISIS
> try hiring staff with IS-IS experience...;-) > > - Original Message - > From: Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 6:08 PM > Subject: OSPF vs ISIS > > > > It looks to me that everybody prefers OSPF in our > > company, just wondering any reasons that we do not > > want to use ISIS? > > > > Thanks > > > > Kent > > > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > > http://photos.yahoo.com > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fw: OSPF vs ISIS
Well, what is the big deal of configuring IS-IS, if we know OSPF(this protocol is nothing if you play with it for a little while), IS-IS should not be a big deal at all, at least, I think so. Thanks Kent --- Andy Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > try hiring staff with IS-IS experience...;-) > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 6:08 PM > > Subject: OSPF vs ISIS > > > > > > > It looks to me that everybody prefers OSPF in > our > > > company, just wondering any reasons that we do > not > > > want to use ISIS? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Kent > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > > > http://photos.yahoo.com > > > > > > ___ > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Fw: OSPF vs ISIS
I like ISIS too, actually that was one of the reasons I brought up the inquiry and thanks a lot for all the inputs. Kent --- Dollard Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > because of the limitations of IS IS, it is not > always suited for all kinds > of networks,while OSPF is more adaptable to most > company networks. rarely > will you see IS IS networks, and it is a shame, > since i like it personaly. > Morgan > > > -Message d'origine- > > De: Kent [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Date: mardi 6 juin 2000 22:59 > > À: Andy Harding; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Objet: Re: Fw: OSPF vs ISIS > > > > Well, what is the big deal of configuring IS-IS, > if we > > know OSPF(this protocol is nothing if you play > with it > > for a little while), IS-IS should not be a big > deal at > > all, at least, I think so. > > > > Thanks > > > > Kent > > > > --- Andy Harding > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > try hiring staff with IS-IS experience...;-) > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 6:08 PM > > > > Subject: OSPF vs ISIS > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks to me that everybody prefers OSPF > in > > > our > > > > > company, just wondering any reasons that we > do > > > not > > > > > want to use ISIS? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Kent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > > > > > http://photos.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com > > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure > violations > > > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations > to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > > http://photos.yahoo.com > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: OSPF vs ISIS in large networks [7:65049]
Hi all, Here is a quick post from Dave Katz on ISIS vs OSPF in large networks dealing with the issue of which protocol inherently scales better. This is from a thread in the IETF OSPF WG mailing list for those looking for the full thread. Dave has participated significantly in the development of routing protocol software for both Cisco and Juniper. Thought some folks might find it interesting Pete >Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:05:14 -0800 >Reply-To: Mailing List >Sender: Mailing List >From: Dave Katz >Subject: Re: ospf limits... >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.1(snapshot 20020919) (usermail.com) >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.5 required=9.1 > tests=FORGED_RCVD_TRAIL,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES > version=2.50 >X-Spam-Level: >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) > >For all practical purposes, the designs of the OSPF and ISIS protocols >will not be the limiting factor in the size of an area, unless (a) you >have a really good implementation, and (b) you feel the need to dump >excessive numbers (many thousands) of external and stub routes into >the protocol. > >Most implementations will crash and burn before the topology gets >big enough to become an issue, and most people don't dump externals >into their IGPs (they use BGP instead.) > >Architecturally, OSPF limits the inter-router topology and stub routes >due to the 64KB limit on the Router LSA, and ISIS limits the total amount >of information due to the 256 LSP "fragment" limit. One could come up >with various hacks for either protocol if these limits were actually, >well, limiting, but this has never been the case in (sane) practice. > >Historically, the ISIS implementation from a particular major vendor has >had better scaling characteristics than the OSPF implementation of that >particular major vendor, but this this isn't really the case for another >major vendor. ;-) > >--Dave Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65049&t=65049 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: OSPF vs ISIS in large networks [7:65078]
At 10:09 AM -0500 3/11/03, Peter van Oene wrote: >Hi all, > >Here is a quick post from Dave Katz on ISIS vs OSPF in large >networks dealing with the issue of which protocol inherently scales >better. This is from a thread in the IETF OSPF WG mailing list for >those looking for the full thread. Dave has participated >significantly in the development of routing protocol software for >both Cisco and Juniper. > >Thought some folks might find it interesting > >Pete As far as the "implementations of ISIS from various vendors," Dave wrote all of the ISIS code involved. There was turnover in Cisco's early OSPF developers. > > >>Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:05:14 -0800 >>Reply-To: Mailing List >>Sender: Mailing List >>From: Dave Katz >>Subject: Re: ospf limits... >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.1(snapshot 20020919) (usermail.com) >>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.5 required=9.1 >> tests=FORGED_RCVD_TRAIL,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES >> version=2.50 >>X-Spam-Level: >>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) >> >>For all practical purposes, the designs of the OSPF and ISIS protocols >>will not be the limiting factor in the size of an area, unless (a) you >>have a really good implementation, and (b) you feel the need to dump >>excessive numbers (many thousands) of external and stub routes into >>the protocol. >> >>Most implementations will crash and burn before the topology gets >>big enough to become an issue, and most people don't dump externals >>into their IGPs (they use BGP instead.) >> >>Architecturally, OSPF limits the inter-router topology and stub routes >>due to the 64KB limit on the Router LSA, and ISIS limits the total amount >>of information due to the 256 LSP "fragment" limit. One could come up >>with various hacks for either protocol if these limits were actually, >>well, limiting, but this has never been the case in (sane) practice. >> >>Historically, the ISIS implementation from a particular major vendor has >>had better scaling characteristics than the OSPF implementation of that >>particular major vendor, but this this isn't really the case for another >>major vendor. ;-) >> >>--Dave Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65078&t=65078 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
