Category: IS-IS

It’s time for another “the vendor IS-IS defaults are all wrong” blog post. Wide IS-IS metrics were standardized in RFC 3784 in June 2004, yet most vendors still use the ancient narrow metrics as the default setting.

Want to know more? The Using IS-IS Metrics lab exercise provides all the gory details.

From a very high-level perspective, OSPF and IS-IS are quite similar. Both were created in the Stone Age of networking, and both differentiate between multi-access LAN segments and point-to-point serial interfaces. Unfortunately, that approach no longer works in the Ethernet Everywhere world where most of the point-to-point links look like LAN segments, so we always have to change the default settings to make an IGP work better.

That’s what you’ll do in today’s lab exercise, which also explains the behind-the-scenes differences between point-to-point and multi-access links and the intricate world of three-way handshake.

In the first exercise in the IS-IS labs series, you configured IS-IS routing for IPv4. Before moving on to more complex topics, let’s explore the data structures IS-IS created to represent your network.

In the first exercise in the IS-IS labs series, you’ll configure IS-IS routing for IPv4. The basic configuration is trivial, but you’ll also have to tweak the defaults that most vendors got wrong (we’ll discuss why those defaults are wrong in the next lab exercises).

I also tried to make the IS-IS labs more than just lab exercises. Each exercise includes a bit of background information or IS-IS theory; this one describes generic OSI addresses (NSAPs) and router addresses (NETs).

Last time we figured out that we cannot run OSPF over unnumbered interfaces that are not point-to-point links because OSPF makes assumptions about interface IP addresses. IS-IS makes no such assumptions; IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes are just a bunch of TLVs exchanged between routers over a dedicated layer-3 protocol with ridiculously long network addresses.

Could we thus build a totally unnumbered IP network with IS-IS even when the network contains multi-access segments? It depends:

Last week I published an unrolled version of Peter Paluch’s explanation of flooding differences between OSPF and IS-IS. Here’s the second part of the saga: IS-IS flooding details (yet again, reposted in a more traditional format with Peter’s permission).

In IS-IS, DIS¹ is best described as a “baseline benchmark” – a reference point that other routers compare themselves to, but it does not sit in the middle of the flow of updates (Link State PDUs, LSPs).

A quick and simplified refresher on packet types in IS-IS: A LSP carries topological information about its originating router – its System ID, its links to other routers and its attached prefixes. It is similar to an OSPF LSU containing one or more LSAs of different types.

Peter Paluch loves blogging in microchunks on Twitter ;) This time, he described the differences between OSPF and IS-IS, and gracefully allowed me to repost the explanation in a more traditional format.

My friends, I happen to have a different opinion. It will take a while to explain it and I will have to seemingly go off on a tangent. Please have patience. As a teaser, though: The 2Way state between DRothers does not improve flooding efficiency – in fact, it worsens it.

TL&DR: You get unequal-cost multipath for free with distance-vector routing protocols. Implementing it in link state routing protocols is an order of magnitude more CPU-consuming.

Continuing our exploration of the Unequal-Cost Multipath world, why was it implemented in EIGRP decades ago, but not in OSPF or IS-IS?

Ignoring for the moment the “does it make sense” dilemma: finding downstream paths (paths strictly shorter than the current best path) is a side effect of running distance vector algorithms.

One of my readers sent me this interesting question:

Assuming we are running a very large OSPF area with a few thousand nodes. If we follow the chain reaction of OSPF LSA flooding while the network is converging at the same time, how would all routers come to know that they all now have same view of area link states and there are no further updates or convergence?

I have bad news: the design requirements for link state protocols effectively prevent that idea from ever working well.

We had the usual gloomy December weather during the end-of-year holidays, and together with the partial lockdown (with confusing ever-changing rules only someone in Balkans could dream up) it managed to put me in OCD mood… and so I decided to remove broken links from the old blog posts.

While doing that I figured out how fragile our industry is – I encountered a graveyard of ideas and products that would make Google proud. Some of those blog posts were removed, I left others intact because they still have some technical merits, and I made sure to write sarcastic update notices on product-focused ones. Consider those comments Easter eggs… now go and find them ;))

Here’s an interesting factoid: when using default IS-IS configuration (running L1 + L2 on all routers in your network), every router inserts every IP prefix from anywhere in your network into L2 topology… at least on Junos.

For more details read this article by Chris Parker. I also wrote about that same problem in 2011.

Finally a group of engineers figured out it’s a good idea to make things less complex instead of heaping layers of complexity on top of already-complex kludges.

RFC 8196 specifies default values and extensions to IS-IS that make it a true plug-and-play routing protocol. I wonder when we’ll see it implemented now that everyone is obsessed with intent-based hype.

Did you rush to try OSPF Loop-Free Alternate on a Cisco 7200 after reading my LFA blog post… and disappointedly discovered that it only works on Cisco 7600? The reason is simple: while LFA does add feasible-successor-like behavior to OSPF, its primary mission is to improve RIB-to-FIB convergence time.

Assume we have a simple triangular network:

Now imagine the A-to-C link fails. How will OSPF react to the link failure as compared to EIGRP? Which one will converge faster? Try to answer the questions before pressing the Read more link ;)

For whatever reason I decided to start my Junos experience with a very simple IS-IS network – four core routers from my Building IPv6 Service Provider Core webinar. As Junosphere doesn’t support serial or POS interfaces, I migrated all links to Gigabit Ethernet and added a point-to-point GE link between PE-A and PE-B.