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

[Tim Jackson <jackson.tim () gmail com>]

So what about commercial implementations?

--
Tim

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

> Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :)
>
> http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/
>
> On Nov 10, 2016 6:53 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <josh () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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