[22481] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IGP Comparison (Summary of Responses)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bradley J. Passwaters)
Tue Jan 5 15:18:31 1999
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:03:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bradley J. Passwaters" <bjp@Glue.umd.edu>
To: Scott Brim <swb@newbridge.com>
cc: Henk Smit <hsmit@cisco.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <00a501be38e3$15988000$6966a8c0@us.newbridge.com>
On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Scott Brim wrote:
> This points out the real issue. OSPF and IS-IS are close enough that other
> factors usually outweigh their differences. The choice of IS-IS in this
> case is really the result of the choice of an equipment vendor. These days
> at least, vendors are not chosen because they implement IS-IS. IS-IS is
> chosen because of some vendors' protocol implementations.
It may have been the result of vendor choice/issue in the past but I don't
see to many people running IS-IS planning to switch over any time soon.
For the record there a number of shops were the lack of IS-IS would
make your product a non-starter. (now if you don't want to sell
those billion dollar plus networks then no you don't need to
implement IS-IS)
bjp@eng.umd.edu | Disclaimer: Can you be sure I even
uunet!eng.umd.edu!istari | exist: Let alone represent anyone
Brad Passwaters (Network Ronin) | or anything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we are. Born to be kings. We're the princes of the universe.
Here we belong, fighting to survive in a war with the darkest power.
Network Manager's Theme Song (QUEEN)
