Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

From: Paul <paul () paulgraydon co uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:19:22 -1000

On 08/16/2011 12:55 PM, Tomas Lynch wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Justin M. Streiner<
streiner () cluebyfour org>  wrote:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, jim deleskie wrote:

  Having run both on some good sized networks, I can tell you to run
what your ops folks know best.  We can debate all day the technical
merits of one v another, but end of day, it always comes down to your
most jr ops eng having to make a change at 2 am, you need to design
for this case, if your using OSPF today and they know OSPF I'd say
stick with it to reduce the chance of things blowing up at 2am when
someone tries to 'fix' something else.

Agreed.  I did an OSPFv3 vs. IS-IS bake-off in my lab several months ago as
part of an IPv6 rollout, and one of the key deciding factors in going with
OSPFv3 over IS-IS was that our ops folks are much more familiar with OSPFv2.
  While there are difference between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 in how they work, the
learning curve is a lot less steep than going from OSPFv2 to IS-IS.


Do not underestimate the power of ops engineers. Really is not that
difficult to learn ISIS and they can add it to their resume.

What would you rather rely on at 3am in the morning when things are breaking? Someone who has just learned IS-IS or someone who already has good experience with OSPF? I would tend towards the latter in my decision making, unless there is significant enough advantage to be gained by the other.


  By Date           By Thread  

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