[130287] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Heath Jones)
Thu Sep 30 18:49:14 2010
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik2bbD=o=9hypC2uNiu5QbLw2AFY4UaWb3MGu1v@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:47:46 +0100
From: Heath Jones <hj1980@gmail.com>
To: Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 30 September 2010 22:11, Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com> wrote:
> 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.
Both OSPF and IS-IS use Dijkstra. IS-IS isn't as widely used because
of the ISO addressing. Atleast thats my take on it..
RIPv2 is great for simple route injection. I'm talking really simple,
just to avoid statics.
