nanog mailing list archives
Re: IS-IS reference
From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () Relcom EU net>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:17:27 +0400 (MSD)
OSPF (and any other dynamic routing protocol) introduces and removes routes every time a link or device goes up or down - or perceived
Yes. For the 100-router backbone, it should happen once/day (failed link, failed router), or once/hour, not more often. Through OSPF route even dynamil dialup addresses as well - withouth any instability.
to go up and down. A typical scenario can be like: connecting a PC
Hmm, what is PC doing in the CORE backbone built by the L2 switches and running 100TX or 1,000TX ethernet? And how often does anyone plug in the broken cards? No, the myths about the dynamic routing instability is not more than a myth - until someone don't try to readvertise 60,000 router from BGP to OSPF or back... I can't understand what all you are flames about - the 2 level schema (IGP for the CORE hosts and networks, IBGP for the multi-home clients, OSPF-ASE or IGP for the STATIC and DialUP clients) have not visible disadvantages (except now you can choose IS-IS instead of OSPF if you use CISCO - can't argue against this).
Additionally _no_ exising IGP has anything resembling protection from malfunctioning routing software _or_ malicious or negligient operators of host-based rotuing software. I had to track down people who enable gated on their linux boxes just for the fun of it, and screw the entire network up in the process, more times than i care to count.
Yes, but do not mix the customer's and core networks; use OSPF authentication if you can't avoid this. And even if you mix networks, plug in broken linux with the wrong configured gated - the worst thing you can do in the real life is to stole DEFAULT (from the default-less backbone -:) - no one even notify this). No, we had a lot of problems from the wrong static routes, from the wrong readvertisements, from the wrong aggregations - and never from the plain simple OSPF itself... Boths OSPF and IS-IS have a long history, designed well and realised very stable (if you don't use something absolutely new and untested). And there is a very simple ways to prevent the possible sources of instability (dividing the roiuting to the CORE-IGP and USERS-IBGP is one of them).
No, the comparation between OSPF and STATIC looks like the comparation between the old (from 1950 year) and modern (Mersedess-600) cars - the first is very simple implemented and difficult to drive; the second is very complex implemented but very simple to drive (but if you are to be starving on the unhabitant ireland with the good roads, you'll choose the first car; but it seemd for me you just choose something more complex in the real life).Did you notice that it takes a highly trained specialist with appropriate (and rather expensive) equipment to diagnose and fix a problem in a Mercedes? A hammer and few expletitives usually suffice for a Packard.
Yes, of course; but let's guess what was chosen by your wife? The OSPF and IS-IS and other MODERN pritocols was designed for the brain-less usage; if you don't write too many config lines and prevent some hellish words, you are absolutely safe. The safest config is router ospf 1 network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 area 0 -:) (you can add 'unnumbered' interfaces to this example as well).
That's the real difference. People who understand routing protocols and how they interact with level-2 transport are still extremely rare and rather expensive. Even the major ISPs here in US have serious staffing problems. An average corporate MIS department is best characterized as clueless (what other explanation is here for the Microsoft dominance? :)
At least he'll be able to understand what's broke when the network goes down. BTW, dealing with heaps of statics is very simple: do a numbering plan first, so the routes are aggregable. That is helpful for dynamic routing, too.
Ok, some day I'll ask you to restore normal routing from the heap of STATIC routes - I did such work twise, and do not want anymore (this was not in our network, through).
--vadim
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
Current thread:
- IS-IS reference Jack Crowder (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Alex P. Rudnev (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Paul G. Donner (Sep 15)
- Re: IS-IS reference Jack Crowder (Sep 18)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IS-IS reference Vadim Antonov (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Alex P. Rudnev (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Vadim Antonov (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Dana Hudes (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Alex Bligh (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Alex P. Rudnev (Sep 14)
- Re: IS-IS reference Vadim Antonov (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Dave Cooper (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Randy Bush (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Dave Cooper (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Alex P. Rudnev (Sep 14)
- Re: IS-IS reference Dave Cooper (Sep 14)
- Re: IS-IS reference Alex P. Rudnev (Sep 15)
- Any known issues at Mae West ? Mr. James W. Laferriere (Sep 15)
- Re: Any known issues at Mae West ? Jan Ahrent Czmok (Sep 15)
- Re: IS-IS reference Dave Cooper (Sep 13)
- Re: IS-IS reference Vijay Gill (Sep 15)