OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Fri Nov 11 01:06:47 UTC 2016

Uh.........

I quote:

> Cisco is the only "real" IS-IS vendor.

> Juniper, Brocade, Arista, Avaya, etc you're not getting it. Any of the
> whitebox hardware or real SDN capable solutions, you're going to be on
OSPF.

Care to elaborate on any of those commercial vendors?

--
Tim

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh at kyneticwifi.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>