OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Charles van Niman charles at phukish.com
Fri Nov 11 00:24:19 UTC 2016

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.


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