IGP Comparison (Summary of Responses)

Tony Li tli at juniper.net
Tue Jan 5 23:03:50 UTC 1999

hsmit at cisco.com (Henk Smit) writes:

> > "There were also non-technical considerations.  Many people felt that it was
> > better that the IETF have complete control over the OSPF protocol design
> > rather than depend on an ISO committee whose goals, namely to produce a
> > routing protocol for the OSI protocol stack, were somewhat different."(2)
>   This is all history, and should not be a reason for you to pick one
>  protocol over the other. The IETF has become what OSI was (and even
>  worse). Right now there are active OSPF *and* IS-IS workgroups. The IETF
>  can extend IS-IS as much as is needed.

We should also point out that the IETF is now an OSI liason organization
and can make contributions to the ISO process.  Further, given the
technical expertise of the folks working in the IETF, the effective death
of CLNP, and the fact that a significant proportion of the systems running
IS-IS are actually doing so to forward IP, any contributions made by the
IETF will be taken very seriously by ISO.

Tony Li
IS-IS WG co-chair

More information about the NANOG mailing list