Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
From: Jason Duerstock <jason.duerstock () gallaudet edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:19:17 -0400

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM, CJ <cjinfantino () gmail com> wrote:

Hey all,
 Is there any reason to run IS-IS over OSPF in the SP core? Currently, we
are running IS-IS but we are redesigning our core and now would be a good
time to switch. I would like to switch to OSPF, mostly because of
familiarity with OSPF over IS-IS.
 What does everyone think?

--
CJ

http://convergingontheedge.com <http://www.convergingontheedge.com>


Granted, we're not a service provider, so we operate on a different scale
here, but one interesting trick that can be done with ISIS (at least on
Cisco) is this:

router a
-----------
router isis
advertise passive-only

interface loopback0
ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.255

interface vlan2
ip unnumbered loopback0
ip router isis
isis network point-to-point


router b
-----------
(copy router isis definition from router a)

interface loopback0
ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.255

(copy vlan2 definition from router a)

-----------

This removes the associated headaches with /30s or /31s in having to keep
track of their allocation, as well as having them clog the your routing
table.

-waits for replies stating why this is a bad idea-

Now, if I could just get isis-per-vrf-instance support on the Catalyst 6500.

Jason


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault