[192665] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [SPAM] Re: OSPF vs ISIS - Which do you prefer & why?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Fri Nov 11 02:45:58 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 07:50:03 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAC6=tfaGoB4ePWJ6pQNVCPi3djyF0oYnv4CyUZkAvaJwJmYM1g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 11/Nov/16 02:00, Josh Reynolds wrote:
> That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the routing
> platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare bones
> IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they comparable
> or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with far
> more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum to
> even go by that name in a datasheet.
I (as I suppose most) would consider full spec. support of the protocol
to be a bare minimum and acceptable for production.
Non-spec. extensions are nice-to-have. Spec. extensions are part of the
bare minimum, and would be supported.
I'm all for having no configurations on a router - that way, there are
fewer avenues to cause network problems. But, we do need configurations
on routers to make them work. So if I don't really the knob, it's no
good having it there in the first place.
Mark.
