OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Fri Nov 11 00:54:36 UTC 2016

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