OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Fri Nov 11 00:53:57 UTC 2016

Here's a start!

"Support for OSPFv3 and IS-IS is various beta states currently; IS-IS for
IPv4 is believed to be usable while OSPFv3 and IS-IS for IPv6 have known
issues."

On Nov 10, 2016 6:50 PM, "Tim Jackson" <jackson.tim at gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe you didn't look hard enough?
>
> ISIS feature support in a bunch of different products has sucked for a
> long time vs OSPF, but that's a pretty well known and accepted fact.
> Generally these features are the same across multiple products from the
> same vendor (usually across the same OS anyway)...
>
> Just name 1 feature that was in Cisco and wasn't in other
> implementations........... Just one.. Something.. Does ISIS on IOS make and
> hand out ice cream on Fridays? I want to know if I'm missing out..
>
> --
> Tim
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh at kyneticwifi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My first post said the following:
>>
>> "Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF."
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman" <charles at phukish.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but
>> > provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all
>> > the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you
>> > linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few people
>> > on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF
>> > adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to
>> > provide any actual details.
>> >
>> > Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as the
>> > landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by
>> > with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is
>> > not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the
>> > job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two
>> > protocols are suitable for all jobs.
>> >
>> > /Charles
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh at kyneticwifi.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very much
>> > like
>> > > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and point
>> > > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality of
>> an
>> > > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the
>> time
>> > to
>> > > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
>> > >
>> > > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
>> > $vendor,
>> > > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
>> > documentation
>> > > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and subversion
>> > > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the
>> > point
>> > > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted
>> enough
>> > > time already.
>> > >
>> > > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the
>> routing
>> > > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare
>> bones
>> > > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they
>> comparable
>> > > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with
>> far
>> > > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum
>> to
>> > > even go by that name in a datasheet.
>> > >
>> > > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your
>> > environment
>> > > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP.
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard" <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> > >> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a
>> multi-thousand
>> > >> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to
>> > make
>> > >> > submarine crews blush.
>> > >>
>> > >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant.  It would be a beautiful
>> > rant.
>> > >>
>> > >> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if you
>> > >> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you
>> made
>> > >> about junos's alleged feature deficits.
>> > >>
>> > >> Nick
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>
>