nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:37:51 +0100 (CET)
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, devang patel wrote:
Thanks for pointing out other good part of having CLNS as a transport for ISIS as a security point!
It's also a potential hassle, where you can have IS-IS up and running, but have IP completely hosed. With OSPF this is harder as it actually runs over IP; no IP, no IGP adjacancy.
There is good reason why neither OSPF nor IS-IS rules the IGP world, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Differences are usually in what the organisation is used to, not because one is fundamentally better than the other.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3, (continued)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mark Tinka (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Randy Bush (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Randy Bush (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mark Tinka (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 28)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Randy Bush (Dec 28)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 28)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Roque Gagliano (Dec 30)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mark Tinka (Dec 30)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Joe Malcolm (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Kevin Oberman (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Martin List-Petersen (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mark Tinka (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 27)