nanog mailing list archives
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
From: Stefan Fouant <sfouant () shortestpathfirst net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:35:48 -0400
I'll go with that... And one other thing... Traditionally it has been easier for developers to add new features to IS-IS because of the structure and flexibility of TLVs, whereas OSPF required the design of entirely new LSA types to support similar capabilities... I guess this has become less of an issue over the last few years however... Nonetheless, if I was building a greenfield network today, I would personally go with IS-IS, but that is largely because of my many years working with the protocol... Stefan Fouant JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks http://www.shortestpathfirst.net http://www.twitter.com/sfouant Sent from my iPad On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is due to the fact that IS-IS is decoupled from IP making it less vulnerable to attacks.how about simpler and more stable? randy
Current thread:
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS, (continued)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Randy Bush (Aug 13)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Jeffrey S. Young (Aug 13)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Saku Ytti (Aug 13)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Tom Hill (Aug 12)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Scott Morris (Aug 12)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Scott Morris (Aug 12)
- RE: OSPF vs IS-IS Doug Marschke (Aug 16)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Jeff Wheeler (Aug 12)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Douglas Otis (Aug 12)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Randy Bush (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Stefan Fouant (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Jimmy Hess (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Stefan Fouant (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Joel Jaeggli (Aug 11)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Vinny Abello (Aug 13)
- Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Matt Addison (Aug 13)