OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Josh Reynolds josh at kyneticwifi.com
Fri Nov 11 01:04:32 UTC 2016


So, we need to narrow the discussion now to only commercial solutions?

This is fun and all (not really) but you can have your thread.

Congrats, you win. I'm not sure what.

On Nov 10, 2016 7:01 PM, "Tim Jackson" <jackson.tim at gmail.com> wrote:

> So what about commercial implementations?
>
> --
> Tim
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh at kyneticwifi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :)
>>
>> http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2016 6:53 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <josh at kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list