[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RIP Justification

Subject: RIP Justification
From: jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:58:21 -0500
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <20100930105357.0084eeb7@t61p> <[email protected]> <8C26A4FDAE599041A13EB499117D3C28405FE046@ex-mb-2.corp.atlasnetworks.us> <[email protected]>

On 9/30/2010 3:32 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> When was the last time you ran into a younger neteng designing his topology
> who went "Yes! IS-IS!"? It works fine (very well in fact) but it's just less
> used.

Which makes no sense to me. I originally looked at both and thought OSPF 
to be inferior to IS-IS. That being said, OSPF is supported on more (and 
cheaper) hardware. IS-IS can have additional licensing with some 
hardware (where OSPF does not) and is often considered a "service 
provider" protocol by vendors.

Jack

Follow-Ups:
- RIP Justification
  - From: jack at crepinc.com (Jack Carrozzo)

References:
- RIP Justification
  - From: jlogginsccie at gmail.com (Jesse Loggins)
- RIP Justification
  - From: jtk at cymru.com (John Kristoff)
- RIP Justification
  - From: jack at crepinc.com (Jack Carrozzo)
- RIP Justification
  - From: nathan at atlasnetworks.us (Nathan Eisenberg)
- RIP Justification
  - From: jack at crepinc.com (Jack Carrozzo)

Prev by Date: AT&T Dry Pairs?
Next by Date: RIP Justification
Previous by thread: RIP Justification
Next by thread: RIP Justification
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread