nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGP choice
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:34:58 -0700
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Dave Bell <me () geordish org> wrote:
On 22 October 2015 at 19:41, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:The "everything must connect to Area 0" requirement of OSPF was limiting for me back in 2008.I'm unsure if this is a serious argument, but its such a poor point today. Everything has to be connected to a level 2 in IS-IS. If you want a flat area 0 network in OSPF, go nuts. As long as you are sensible about what you put in your IGP, both IS-IS and OSPF scale very well.
It is rather nice that IS-IS does not require level-2 to be contiguous, unlike area 0 in OSPF. It is a valid topology in IS-IS to have different level-2 areas connected by level-1 areas, though you do have to be somewhat careful about what routes you propagate into-and-back-out-of the intervening level-1 area. But other than that, yeah, the two protocols are pretty much homologous. Matt
Current thread:
- Re: IGP choice, (continued)
- Re: IGP choice thomas nanog (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Bill Blackford (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Saku Ytti (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Saku Ytti (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice marcel.duregards () yahoo fr (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Matthew Petach (Oct 30)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 30)
- Re: IGP choice Randy Bush (Oct 24)
- Message not available
- Re: IGP choice Randy Bush (Oct 26)