[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IGP choice
- Subject: IGP choice
- From: marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr (marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr)
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:24:59 +0100
- In-reply-to: <CAEmG1=pV3nX61CcXg3nhubPBWg0LF-DELBGqbKy6smwJf55gXw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAEmG1=pV3nX61CcXg3nhubPBWg0LF-DELBGqbKy6smwJf55gXw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Matthew,
Thank a lot for your answer. This help me to understand, and make more
sense to me :-).
Thanks,
-Marcel
On 23.10.2015 18:31, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:41 AM, marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr
> <marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>> sorry for that, but the only one I've heard about switching his core IGP is
>> Yahoo. I've no precision, and it's really interest me.
>> I know that there had OSPF in the DC area, and ISIS in the core, and decide
>> to switch the core from ISIS to OSPF.
>
> Wait, what?
> *checks memory*
> *checks routers*
>
> Nope. Definitely went the other way; OSPF -> IS-IS in the core.
>
>> Why spend so much time/risk to switch from ISIS to OSPF, _in the core_ a not
>> so minor impact/task ?
>> So I could guess it's for maintain only one IGP and have standardized
>> config. But why OSPF against ISIS ? What could be the drivers? People skills
>> (more people know OSPF than ISIS) --> operational reason ?
>
> I'm sorry you received the wrong information,
> the migration was from OSPF to IS-IS, not
> the other way around.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>
- References:
- IGP choice
- From: marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr (marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr)
- IGP choice
- From: niels=nanog at bakker.net (Niels Bakker)
- IGP choice
- From: marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr (marcel.duregards at yahoo.fr)
- IGP choice
- From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)