[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
- Subject: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
- From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:50:03 +0200
- In-reply-to: <CAC6=tfaGoB4ePWJ6pQNVCPi3djyF0oYnv4CyUZkAvaJwJmYM1g@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAC6=tfaYDaLLSHWcSg1ybkEB_CKVvtDrpShCSzPjDVFcQbhimw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfaR43LSW2YPBK3GQR4g057rO85WMQaHKkpJftt0M-7PiQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfaJYGQmJqfcC+mT5RF=KmOiX69gQEqTDQFYGkRf4G=4sQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfZPzGtQ3+11ZCiD29A9eiQeFwrY7OY+MhqHfqUYvZgqeg@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfYGxdVkzY33CVi6A8xigW5Zmyyg0AqX=NLtuK5E6vBAGg@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfZyn1zVsfgma+N2a11qV-mx=ZKQ3qc0RrimCCC-1+R1DA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfaFn-6Y=pvhTL8eWWmwd3dBEzV6F1EyuAbvfYxrGMWXeA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAC6=tfaGoB4ePWJ6pQNVCPi3djyF0oYnv4CyUZkAvaJwJmYM1g@mail.gmail.com>
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.