OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?

[jackson.tim at gmail.com (Tim Jackson)]

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>