[130271] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Carrozzo)
Thu Sep 30 17:11:55 2010
In-Reply-To: <4CA4F9ED.1000007@brightok.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:11:40 -0400
From: Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have $lots of
prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far more
resource-intensive and as such OSPF doesn't get too happy after $a_lot_less
prefixes. Those numbers can be debated as you like, but I think if you were
to redist bgp ospf on a lab machine you'd get the point.
Disclaimer: I've never run IS-IS operationally, just in the lab.
-Jack
> 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
>
