[117430] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cord MacLeod)
Fri Sep 11 21:51:41 2009
From: Cord MacLeod <cordmacleod@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <m263bpot1j.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:49:59 -0700
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 11, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I seem to get the impression that isis is preferred in the core. Any
>> reasons why folks dont prefer to go with ospf?
>
> a bit harder to attack clnp (is-is) than ip (ospf)
>
> is-is a bit simpler to configure, though you can get a sick as you
> want. but don't.
>
> a bit simpler to code, so worked and was stable when ospf was far
> flakier than it is now.
I'd also add that ISIS supports IPv6 through the addition of TLVs
whereas OSPF was redesigned into OSPFv3.
Personally I like ISIS due to it's simplicity and use it for router
loopback advertisement only.
