IGP choice

A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk
Thu Oct 22 20:05:16 UTC 2015


> The differences between the two protocols are so small, that people
> really grasp at straws when 'proving' that one is better over the
> other. 'IS-IS doesn't work over IP, so its more secure'. 'IS-IS uses
> TLVs so new features are quicker to implement'. While these may be
> vaguely valid arguments, they don't hold much water. If you don't
> secure your routers to bad actors forming OSPF adjacencies with you,
> you're doing something wrong.Who is running code that is so bleeding
> edge that feature X might be available for IS-IS, but not OSPF?

well, bleeding edge fearures in ISIS would also depend on your vendor...
ours seems backwards for ISIS in most of their product line and
we're always wanting more.... heck, I think they've even tried to ensure its not in
their training courses either...just the briefest of mentions  :/

as for IGP -   ISIS - we moved to it from OSPF because we didnt want
2 seperate routing calculations and tables being kept for IPv4 and IPv6 and
all routing config is under the one routing protocol. 


More information about the NANOG mailing list