[143537] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stefan Fouant)
Thu Aug 11 18:32:23 2011
In-Reply-To: <m2ipq3a8vz.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Stefan Fouant <sfouant@shortestpathfirst.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:35:48 -0400
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, CJ <cjinfantino@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I'll go with that... And one other thing... Traditionally it has been easier=
for developers to add new features to IS-IS because of the structure and fl=
exibility of TLVs, whereas OSPF required the design of entirely new LSA type=
s to support similar capabilities... I guess this has become less of an issu=
e over the last few years however...
Nonetheless, if I was building a greenfield network today, I would personall=
y go with IS-IS, but that is largely because of my many years working with t=
he protocol...
Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
http://www.shortestpathfirst.net
http://www.twitter.com/sfouant
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is
>> due to the fact that IS-IS is decoupled from IP making it less
>> vulnerable to attacks.
>=20
> how about simpler and more stable?
>=20
> randy
