ISIS and OSPF: Network Design Comparisons and Considerations Roosevelt Ferreira Professional Services Engineer

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
OSPF 1.
Advertisements

Introduction to OSPF Mark Tinka. Routing and Forwarding  Routing is not the same as Forwarding  Routing is the building of maps Each routing protocol.
Introduction to OSPF.
Lonnie Decker Multiarea OSPF for CCNA Department Chair, Networking/Information Assurance Davenport University, Michigan August 2013 Elaine Horn Cisco Academy.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public ITE PC v4.0 Chapter 1 1 OSPF Routing Protocols and Concepts – Chapter 11.
1 Introduction to ISIS SI-E Workshop AfNOG The Gambia Noah Maina.
Designing OSPF Networks
IPv6 Routing IPv6 Workshop Manchester September 2013
Release 5.1, Revision 0 Copyright © 2001, Juniper Networks, Inc. Advanced Juniper Networks Routing Module 4: Intermediate System To Intermediate System.
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman 1 Reference: IS-IS vs OSPF Shivkumar Kalyanaraman Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Abstracted from NANOG talks.
Nov 11, 2004CS573: Network Protocols and Standards1 IP Routing: OSPF Network Protocols and Standards Autumn
1 ELEN 602 Lecture 20 More on Routing RIP, OSPF, BGP.
Routing and Routing Protocols
Objectives After completing this chapter you will be able to: Describe hierarchical routing in OSPF Describe the 3 protocols in OSPF, the Hello, Exchange.
1 Relates to Lab 4. This module covers link state routing and the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol. Dynamic Routing Protocols II OSPF.
ROUTING PROTOCOLS PART II ET4187/ET5187 Advanced Telecommunication Network.
CCNP Network Route OSPF Part -I OSPF: Open Shortest Path First Concept of OSPF: 1. It is a link state routing protocol. 2. There are basically only 2 ISIS.
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Chapter 5: Adjust and Troubleshoot Single- Area OSPF Scaling Networks.
1 Routing Protocols. 2 Distributed Routing Protocols Rtrs exchange control info Use it to calculate forwarding table Two basic types –distance vector.
Unicast Routing Protocols  A routing protocol is a combination of rules and procedures that lets routers in the internet inform each other of changes.
Collected By: Mehdi Daneshvar Supervisor: E.M.Kosari.
1 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2003, Cisco Systems, Inc. OSPF and ISIS v6 Khalid Raza
LAN Switching and WAN Networks Topic 6 - OSPF. What we have done so far! 18/09/2015Richard Hancock2  Looked at the basic switching concepts and configuration.
Open Shortest Path First Pedro Tsao
Routing protocols Basic Routing Routing Information Protocol (RIP) Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
© 1999, Cisco Systems, Inc OSPF Overview RFC 2328, 2178, 1583.
© Synergon Informatika Rt., 1999 Chapter 9 Configuring Open Shortest Path First.
Network Architecture and Design
Introduction to OSPF Nishal Goburdhan. Routing and Forwarding Routing is not the same as Forwarding Routing is the building of maps Each routing protocol.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Version 4.0 OSPF Routing Protocols and Concepts – Chapter 11.
1 © 2003, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. CCNA 3 v3.0 Module 2 Single-Area OSPF.
CCNA 3 Week 2 Link State Protocols OSPF. Copyright © 2005 University of Bolton Distance Vector vs Link State Distance Vector –Copies Routing Table to.
1 Module 4: Implementing OSPF. 2 Lessons OSPF OSPF Areas and Hierarchical Routing OSPF Operation OSPF Routing Tables Designing an OSPF Network.
1 of of 35 Single Area OSPF Concepts 3 of 35 OSPF Basics.
CCNA Guide to Cisco Networking Fundamentals Fourth Edition
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. BSCI v3.0—4-1 The IS-IS Protocol Introducing IS-IS and Integrated IS-IS Routing.
 Development began in 1987  OSPF Working Group (part of IETF)  OSPFv2 first established in 1991  Many new features added since then  Updated OSPFv2.
IS-IS An introduction to IGP routing protocols Hagai Kahana.
Chapter 14 1 Unicast Routing Protocols There isn’t a person anywhere that isn’t capable of doing more than he thinks he can. - Henry Ford.
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Chapter 8: Single-Area OSPF Routing Protocols.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. ROUTE v1.0—3-1 Implementing a Scalable Multiarea Network OSPF-Based Solution Planning Routing Implementations.
OSPFv3 John Rullan Cisco Certified Instructor Trainer Thomas A. Edison CTE HS Stephen Lynch Network Architect, CCIE #36243 ABS Technology Architects.
1 24-Feb-16 S Ward Abingdon and Witney College OSPF CCNA Exploration Semester 2 Chapter 11.
Single Area OSPF Module 2, Review How routing information is maintained Link-state routers apply the Dijkstra shortest path first algorithm against.
Routing Protocol RIP-2. RIP-2 Basic Concepts Routers using RIP-2 advertise a small amount of simple information about each subnet to their neighbors.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public ITE PC v4.0 Chapter 1 1 Routing Protocols and Concepts OSPF Chapter 11 Modified by Pete Brierley.
1 Introduction to ISIS AfNOG 2011 SI-E Workshop. 2 IS-IS Standards History  ISO specifies OSI IS-IS routing protocol for CLNS traffic A Link State.
1 CMPT 471 Networking II OSPF © Janice Regan,
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Chapter 8: Single-Area OSPF Routing & Switching.
IGP Troubleshooting 3.
Dynamic Routing Protocols II OSPF
Link State Routing protocol
Routing Protocols (RIP, OSPF, BGP)
Kevin Piper, David Perry, Tom Hoffman, Emely Pagan
OSPF (Open Shortest Path First)
Dynamic Routing: Dynamic routing is where we use a routing protocol; routing protocols are cool because they take care of our work. Routing protocols will.
IS3120 Network Communications Infrastructure
13.3 OSPF: Open Shortest Path First.
Dynamic Interior Routing Information Mechanisms
Link State Algorithm Alternative to distance-vector
Module Summary Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol is one of the most commonly used link-state IP routing protocols in networking. It is an open standard.
Designing and Troubleshooting OSPF Networks
CCNA 3 v3 JEOPARDY Module 2 CCNA3 v3 Module 2 K. Martin.
Dynamic Routing and OSPF
Chapter 8: Single-Area OSPF
Cisco networking, CNET-448
Cisco networking, CNET-448
Routing With a Link-State Protocol
Routing Protocols and Concepts – Chapter 11
Presentation transcript:

ISIS and OSPF: Network Design Comparisons and Considerations Roosevelt Ferreira Professional Services Engineer

Objectives  Understand the protocol similarities and differences  Understand the strengths and weaknesses  Make more informed design decisions

ISOspeak 101  Intermediate System (IS)  End System (ES)  Protocol Data Unit (PDU)  Subnetwork Point of Attachment (SNPA)  Link State PDU (LSP)  Routing Domain  Level 2 Area  Level 1 Area

Message Encoding: OSPF  Runs over IP (protocol number 89)  32-bit alignment  Only LSAs are extensible  All OSPF speakers must recognize the extensions

Message Encoding: ISIS  Runs directly over data link  No alignment  All PDUs are extendable  Nested TLVs

Media Support  OSPF  Broadcast (LANs)  Point-to-Point  Point-to-Multipoint  NBMA  ISIS  Broadcast  Point-to-Point  No NBMA support

Router and Area IDs: OSPF  Router ID and Area ID specified separately  Each is 32-bit number  AID associated with interface  RID 1. Explicitly specified RID 2. Loopback address 3. Highest interface IP address

Router and Area IDs: ISIS  Area ID and SysID (Router ID) specified in Network Entity Title (NET)  NSAP address format  In JUNOS ™ Internet software, specified on loopback interface Area ID System ID SEL 1 byte 1-13 bytes 6 bytes Examples: a5.7c a5.7c a ffdd a5.7c32.00

Neighbor Discovery and Maintenance: OSPF  Hello Packets  Establish 2-way communication  Advertise optional capabilities  DR/BDR election/discovery  Serve as keepalives  10s default hello interval, dead interval 4X  Most Hello fields must match for adjacency  Area ID, authentication, network mask, HelloInterval, RouterDeadInterval, MTU, Options  Changing values causes adjacency disruption

Neighbor Discovery and Maintenance: ISIS  Hello Packets  Establish 2-way communication  L1, L2, L1/L2 neighbor discovery  DR election/discovery  Serve as keepalives  3s JUNOS default hello interval, dead interval 3X  Hellos padded to full MTU size (dubious)  Fewer matches necessary for adjacency  Hello and dead intervals can vary  Not even IP subnets must match!

Database Synchronization : OSPF  Database synchronization driven by state machine  Master/Slave election  Database synchronization  Database Description packets  Link State Request packets  Link State Update packets  Link State Acknowledgement packets

Database Synchronization: ISIS  Simple synchronization based on flooding of Sequence Number PDUs  CSNPs  Describe all LSPs in the database  Analogous to OSPF DD messages  Sent by DR every 10 seconds on broadcast networks  Sent every hour on point-to-point networks  PSNPs  Request missing or newer LSPs  Analogous to OSPF LS Request messages

Database Refresh: OSPF  LSA refresh every 30 minutes  MaxAge = 1 hour  Up-counting timer  Design flaw: Cannot change MaxAge

Database Refresh: ISIS  LSP refresh every 15 minutes  Minus random jitter timer of up to 25%  LSP Lifetime = 20 minutes (default)  Down-counting timer  LSP Lifetime configurable up to 18.2 hours  Major reason ISIS scales better to large areas

Designated Routers: OSPF  Highest priority becomes DR  0-255, default 128  Highest router ID tie-breaker  Backup Designated Router  Speeds recovery from failed DR  DR cannot be preempted  So, the DR is usually the first active router  Adjacencies formed only with DR and BDR

Designated Routers (DIS): ISIS  Highest priority becomes DR  0-127, default 64  Highest MAC address tie-breaker  No Backup Designated Router  DR can be preempted  Adding a router to a LAN can cause temporary instability  Adjacencies formed with all routers on LAN, not just DR  Separate L1 and L2 adjacencies on same LAN

Area Structure: OSPF  Area boundaries fall on routers  Router types:  Interior (or backbone)  ABR  ASBR Area 1 Area 0 Area 2 External Routes ASBR ABR/ ASBR ABR

Area Structure: ISIS  Area boundaries fall between routers  External reachability information in L2 LSPs only  Router types:  L1  L2  L1/L2 Area 01 Area 03 Area 02 External Routes L1 L2 L1/L2 L1 L2

Metrics: OSPF  Dimensionless metric  Large metric field  Type 1 LSA = 16 bits  Type 3, 4, 5, and 7 LSA = 24 bits  Cost  Cost = Reference BW/ Interface BW  Default Reference BW = 100Mbps  If (Ref BW/Interface BW) > 1, Cost = 1  Cost can also be set arbitrarily  External Metrics  Type 1 (E1) = Assigned cost + cost to ASBR  Type 2 (E2) = Assigned cost only

Metrics: ISIS  Dimensionless metric  ISO defines 4 metric fields  Only default used in practice  Small 6-bit metric field  Default = 10 for all interfaces  Maximum interface value = 64  Maximum route metric = 1023  Possible limited metric granularity in large networks  Originally intended to simplify SPF calculation (irrelevant with modern CPUs)  Wide Metrics  Extends metric field to 32 bits  Metrics tagged as internal or external (I/E Bit)

LSA Scalability: OSPF  Famous “rules of thumb” carry little real meaning  64KB maximum LSA size  Only Router (type 1) LSAs likely to grow large  24 bytes of fixed fields  12 bytes to represent each link  5331 links, maximum (but isn’t this enough?)  Types 3, 4, 5, 7 LSAs  One destination prefix per LSA  Be careful what you redistribute!

LSP Scalability: ISIS  Single LSP per router, per level  Fragmentation supported, but...  Maximum fragment size = 1470 bytes  Maximum number of fragments = 256  …but isn’t this enough?  Be careful what you redistribute!

Stub Areas  Trade routing precision for improved scalability  OSPF  Stub areas eliminate type 5 LSA load  Totally stubby areas extend the concept  All area routers must understand stubbiness  ISIS  L1 routers are “totally stubby” by default  Attached (ATT) set by L1/L2 router

ISIS Inter-Area Route Leaking  Why leak routes?  Improved routing precision  More accurate BGP next-hop resolution  Using ISIS metric as BGP MED  L1-->L2 route leaking happens by default  Internal routes only  External routes require policy  L2-->L1 route leaking requires policy  Internal or external  Up/Down bit prevents looping

Not-So-Stubby Areas  OSPF feature  “Trick” to allow advertisement of external routes through stub areas (type 5 LSAs illegal)  All routers in area must understand type 7 LSAs  Similar function with ISIS  Using simple L1-->L2 policy

NBMA Networks  OSPF  Point-to-Point  Point-to-Multipoint mode  NBMA mode (but why?)  P-T-MP and NBMA require manual specification of neighbor addresses  ISIS  No multipoint support  Must configure interfaces as logical P-T-Ps

Virtual Links  Useful for  Patching partitioned areas  Area migrations  Should be a temporary solution!  Full OSPF support  No ISIS support  Specified in ISO 10589, but not implemented but major router vendors

Overload Bit  ISIS feature  Enables router to signal memory overload  No transit traffic sent to overloaded router  Set separately for Level 1 and Level 2  Can be manually set, useful for graceful router turn-up  No comparable OSPF feature

Mesh Groups  ISIS feature (RFC 2973)  Can sharply curtail LSP flooding in full-mesh topologies  Each router in mesh group receives only one copy of each LSP (one-hop flooding)  Risk of lost LSPs-- Insure design is robust enough!  Interfaces can be manually configured to block LSPs (increased scalability, but increased risk)  OSPF has no comparable feature

Security  Both protocols support authentication  Plain-text passwords (sniffable!)  MD5 cryptographic hash  Authentication especially important with OSPF  Runs over IP, so subject to spoofing and other attacks  Non-IP nature makes ISIS inherently more secure  But authentication still a good idea

Conclusion  Both protocols are mature and stable (with the right vendor)  Both protocols continue to be extended  Enterprise networks  IGP requirements can be complex  OSPF is a “no-brainer”  Service provider networks  IGP requirements usually simpler  Scalability, stability are paramount  Consider your requirements carefully, pick the protocol that fits

Thank You!