[116828] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clue Store)
Thu Aug 20 20:56:33 2009
In-Reply-To: <m2ws4yjb65.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:56:14 -0500
From: Clue Store <cluestore@gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Am I alone in my view that BGP is _far_ more simple and
> straight-forward than OSPF
>that ospf has become exceedingly complex, and all that results thereof.
I couldn't agree more. Most of my staff are still under the impression in
Cisco land that the "network 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" statement injects that
network into OSPF, when it simply turns on OSPF for the interfaces that are
in that network. I'm really glad to see Cisco that made this change in
OSPFv3 for v6.
Clue
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> > Am I alone in my view that BGP is _far_ more simple and
> > straight-forward than OSPF
>
> this is a very telling statement in a number of ways.
>
> that ospf has become exceedingly complex, and all that results thereof.
>
> that both are known for their complexity.
>
> randy
>
>
