thomas.nanog at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 20:59:30 UTC 2015
You still have separate tables for IPv4 and IPv6 with isis and
multi-topology still runs 2 spf calculations.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:05 PM, <A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
> > 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