OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
josh at kyneticwifi.com
Fri Nov 11 00:31:47 UTC 2016
My first post:
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.
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh at kyneticwifi.com>
> > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very much
> > 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
> > go through it, to find discrepancies between them.
> > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with
> > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> >> > submarine crews blush.
> >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant. It would be a beautiful
> >> 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