SV: IGP protocol

[gustav.ulander at telecomputing.se (Gustav Ulander)]

Hello all.

We also run a small network (sub 50 PEs)
It looks pretty similar to Baldurs except we run IS-IS instead of OSPF.
IPV4 only in the global table with VPNV4 and VPNv6 services running on top of it.
We do run a separate OBM network to handle management without being dependent on service infrastructure for management.
Only real difference we notice is that Cisco seem to roll out service provider features and knobs for IS-IS first and then eventually for OSPF.
Good or bad is the question.

//Gustav

Från: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> För Baldur Norddahl
Skickat: den 15 november 2018 02:51
Till: nanog at nanog.org
Ã?mne: Re: IGP protocol

We run a MPLS enabled network with internet in a VRF. Management is in VRF default (no VRF). The IGP is OSPFv2. IPv6 is handled by the L3VPN functionality of MPLS. So is IPv4.

The IPv4 that is controlled by OSPF is totally separate from everything except management and could really be any protocol. For a small network like ours, with everything in area 0 and VRF/L3VPN to handle dual stack, there is zero differences between is-is and OSPF. The IPv4 management network is not any more reachable than the is-is protocol. There are no raw IPv6 packets on the wire and no need for the IGP to handle IPv6.

Also not true that the management network is the last thing to boot. In contrary, everything else depends on that being ready first. And that would also be true if we used is-is.

We chose OSPF because it was one less protocol to learn and one less ethernet type on the wire. But really it could be toss a coin.

Regards

Baldur


ons. 14. nov. 2018 14.55 skrev James Bensley <jwbensley at gmail.com<mailto:jwbensley at gmail.com>>:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 12:09, Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi<mailto:saku at ytti.fi>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 12:37, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu<mailto:mark.tinka at seacom.mu>> wrote:
>
> > Main reasons:
> >     - Doesn't run over IP.
>
> Why is this upside? I've seen on two platforms (7600, MX) ISIS punted
> on routers running ISIS without interface having ISIS.  With no
> ability to limit it, so any connected interface can DoS device with
> trivial pps rate, if ISIS is being ran.

I guess the OPs original question wasn't clear enough because, I think
most people are talking about IS-IS vs OSPF2/3 from a theoretical
protocol perspective, and you're talking from a practical vendor
implementation perspective.