[81631] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OSPF -vs- ISIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E.Seastrom)
Tue Jun 21 13:48:59 2005
To: "Wayne E. Bouchard" <web@typo.org>
Cc: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>,
Mike Bernico <mbernico@illinois.net>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Robert E.Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:46:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20050621173501.GA81202@typo.org> (Wayne E. Bouchard's message
of "Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:35:01 -0700")
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
"Wayne E. Bouchard" <web@typo.org> writes:
>> One vendor in particular sees ISIS as "an ISP protocol" and OSPF as "an
>> enterprise protocol". Their implementation of the latter has often gotten
>> many enterprise-oriented features (e.g. dial-on-demand link support) that
>> the other didn't, whereas the former was known for reliability because the
>> coders were admonished to touch it rarely and test the heck out of every
>> change because screwing up might break the Internet.
>
> To that end, you also need to be aware that outside of the "major"
> vendors, most don't even know what ISIS is. So if you're trying to
> integrate other vendors' equipment into your network, you may have no
> choice but OSPF.
The other edge of that sword is that letting someone outside of the
"major" vendors' OSPF (1) talk to your cloud qualifies as "risky
behavior".
---rob
(1) where "major vendors" means "widely deployed", not "widely
deployed for money". the question is whether installing on your
network is an unspoke part of their beta testing strategy.
