Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
Hi, It has to do with protocols design. For new extensions IS-IS just needs a new TLV while OSPF requires some serious changes. From my observation: few years ago most of new features came out first for ISIS last year I see some stuff coming for OSPF first: flooding of mesh group info for MPLS TE is supported by OSPF only, some other stuff as well Cheers, Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: dinsdag 24 april 2007 15:54 To: Joe Shen Cc: nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP? Hi, On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:42:46AM +0800, Joe Shen wrote: And, to my knowledge, technical research on OSPF is more fertile than IS-IS, and new feature is introduced to OSPF eariler than IS-IS. Well - this is something opinions differ on, given that IPv6 could very easily be added to IS-IS, while they had to do a completely new protocol (OSPFv3) to be able to make it do IPv6... I think IS-IS is more elegant due to the way it does v4 and v6 basically in a single protocol, all in one go, and with OSPF you need to run two routing instances mostly doing the same, but independently so - but OTOH, IS-IS using OSI transport, which means if your IP stack breaks, your routing protocol might still happily assign reachability (which did happen to BT some years ago). So in summary - use whatever you're familiar with, and what works for you. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +49-89-35655025[EMAIL PROTECTED] muenchen.de ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
Hi, http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0006/katz.html jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of omar parihuana Sent: zaterdag 21 april 2007 19:32 To: nsp Subject: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP? Hi list, We're redesigning a small MPLS Network (about 30 PE Routers and 2 P Routers -Link between P-PE: Ethernet-), so far the IGP is OSPF, however ISIS was proposed too. What is the best? IS-IS or OSPF? and Why? regarding the small network. Thank you for your suggestions... Rgds. -- Omar E.P.T - Certified Networking Professionals make better Connections! ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
On (2007-04-22 03:04 -0400), Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Welcome to the miracle of having every config command lag because it has to query against a tacacs server. Sensible people would have a) not designed a system that is so easy to fuck up, or b) at least have a local configuration option which can run commands through an allow/deny regexp without having to query a remote server every time. CLI Views might be one alternative here. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_white_paper09186a00801ee18d.shtml But quite poorly available on the higher end gear, just came to 12.2(33)SRB. We've used it in CPE's quite long time to provide partners limited set of access. -- ++ytti ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
True, but the lag isn't that bad compared to having to reload the router. :) Defining things locally becomes a nightmare to manage, but having a local copy that is dl'ed from a central server(s) would be useful On 4/22/07, Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 01:40:21AM -0400, heh heh wrote: Welcome the miracle of tacacs. Welcome to the miracle of having every config command lag because it has to query against a tacacs server. Sensible people would have a) not designed a system that is so easy to fuck up, or b) at least have a local configuration option which can run commands through an allow/deny regexp without having to query a remote server every time. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
Hi list, We're redesigning a small MPLS Network (about 30 PE Routers and 2 P Routers -Link between P-PE: Ethernet-), so far the IGP is OSPF, however ISIS was proposed too. What is the best? IS-IS or OSPF? and Why? regarding the small network. Thank you for your suggestions... Rgds. -- Omar E.P.T - Certified Networking Professionals make better Connections! ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
At 01:50 PM 4/21/2007, Oliver Boehmer \(oboehmer\) wrote: check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to use what you're most comfortable and familiar with, and as you're using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. Indeed. Stick with OSPF. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
How about just to read this: :) http://www.amazon.com/OSPF-Choosing-Large-Scale-Networks/dp/0321168798/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8633462-4102568?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1177196013sr=8-2 On 22/04/07, Gary Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:50 PM 4/21/2007, Oliver Boehmer \(oboehmer\) wrote: check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to use what you're most comfortable and familiar with, and as you're using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. Indeed. Stick with OSPF. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 07:50:32PM +0200, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote: omar parihuana wrote on Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:32 PM: Hi list, We're redesigning a small MPLS Network (about 30 PE Routers and 2 P Routers -Link between P-PE: Ethernet-), so far the IGP is OSPF, however ISIS was proposed too. What is the best? IS-IS or OSPF? and Why? regarding the small network. check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to use what you're most comfortable and familiar with, and as you're using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. Possibly the single most annoying difference is that Cisco uses the command ip router isis tag to activate isis on an interface, vs just ip ospf with no router. Now imagine you're tired and trying to take isis off an interface, and instead of typing no ip router isis you accidentally type no router isis, and guess what happens. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
