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

OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

Subject: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
From: zbynek at dialtelecom.cz (Zbyněk Pospíchal)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:54:38 +0100
In-reply-to: <CAAWx_pU4L09za-Wc34UcSaZkOy9bLTAk54WLo6zZ7cTGtaxLkA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGy+NY0R+9fBSRH5RKNc7mp4aF4B3K0c+CTwVuSakHsfF8r0ng@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAAWx_pU4L09za-Wc34UcSaZkOy9bLTAk54WLo6zZ7cTGtaxLkA@mail.gmail.com>

Dne 10.11.16 v 11:17 James Bensley wrote:

>>   * Integrated IPv4/IPv6 protocol support in a single IGP implementation.
> 
> This is in OSPv3.

In theory, yes. In the real world operators need MPLS label
distribution, which is still not supported in many implementations.

Regards,
Zbynek

Follow-Ups:
- OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
  - From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)

References:
- OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
  - From: main at kipsang.com (Michael Bullut)
- OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
  - From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)
- OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
  - From: jwbensley at gmail.com (James Bensley)

Prev by Date: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
Next by Date: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
Previous by thread: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
Next by thread: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread