Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>]

On 11/Nov/16 02:00, Josh Reynolds wrote:

> 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.

I (as I suppose most) would consider full spec. support of the protocol
to be a bare minimum and acceptable for production.

Non-spec. extensions are nice-to-have. Spec. extensions are part of the
bare minimum, and would be supported.

I'm all for having no configurations on a router - that way, there are
fewer avenues to cause network problems. But, we do need configurations
on routers to make them work. So if I don't really the knob, it's no
good having it there in the first place.

Mark.