[130270] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Sep 30 16:58:32 2010
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:58:21 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=91G=UhGGvCQvywKOEX8o=toOx7wuADCKNWzTS@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 9/30/2010 3:32 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> When was the last time you ran into a younger neteng designing his topology
> who went "Yes! IS-IS!"? It works fine (very well in fact) but it's just less
> used.
Which makes no sense to me. I originally looked at both and thought OSPF
to be inferior to IS-IS. That being said, OSPF is supported on more (and
cheaper) hardware. IS-IS can have additional licensing with some
hardware (where OSPF does not) and is often considered a "service
provider" protocol by vendors.
Jack
