OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Tim Jackson jackson.tim at gmail.com
Fri Nov 11 01:01:39 UTC 2016


So what about commercial implementations?

--
Tim

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh at kyneticwifi.com> wrote:

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



More information about the NANOG mailing list