North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: OSPF -vs- ISIS

  • From: Dan Evans
  • Date: Tue Jun 21 10:38:54 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=DGAeq7Aol7zED6zRkXGbLRPYd/OP69JYrN8lD8hFHh+ECeF2c3MtuTdIiTcxgukqCYDfXitGD7lnCqW3+KtRmO5WLMm1tuqtuc6bG/xMMLuPPeG/NgL4kvRjyMKJf5E71pS6nxfvVKxFuZCoHU7+LY78ehLNGoXRs9SElfW0boU=

We're currently running OSPF. Believe me, I understand that switching
IGP's is not a simple undertaking. There are several benefits that I'm
looking at, some of which have already been mentioned in replies to my
original thread. Security is one, the other being IPv6 support. I'm
going to have to turn on another protocol in order to support IPv6. My
two choices are OSFPv3 or IS-IS. The decision then becomes, do I have
a single IGP protocol that maintains both IPv4 and IPv6 information,
or do I run two seperate (although closely related) protocols.


On 6/21/05, Dan Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
> All,
> Can anyone point me to information on what the top N service providers
> are using for their IGP? I'm trying to build a case for switching from
> OSPF to IS-IS. Those on this list who are currently running IS-IS, do
> you find better scalability and stability running IS-IS than OSPF? I
> understand that this question is a lot more complex than a simple yes
> or no since factors like design and routing policy will certainly
> affect the protocols behavior.
> Any insights or experiences that you can share would be most helpful.
> Thanks,
> Daniel Evans
> Alltel Communications