nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGP choice
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:31:08 +0200
On 22/Oct/15 23:22, Bill Blackford wrote:
I don't have all the details because I don't fully understand it, but I've heard that if you're running an MPLS/RSVP core, you can only use a single OSPF area. This introduces a scalability ceiling.
Not true. The rate of development of advanced features in OSPF and IS-IS is at a similar pace today. The main issue is implementation. Some vendors will implement the new capabilities in one protocol sooner than the other. The features may eventually filter down to the other protocol, or not. It is entirely a situation specific to your vendor. For example, IIRC, LFA came to IS-IS in Junos first, and then OSPF followed (or was it the other way around, I can't remember - but support didn't come for both immediately). Same thing at Cisco. Quagga is an example of a case where IS-IS is seriously lagging behind OSPF to the point of not being useable at all. So while the spec. will have parity, your choice of vendor will be a practical factor. Mark.
Current thread:
- RE: IGP choice, (continued)
- RE: IGP choice Steve Mikulasik (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Randy via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Dave Bell (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice sthaug (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Baldur Norddahl (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Pablo Lucena (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice A . L . M . Buxey (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice thomas nanog (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Bill Blackford (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Saku Ytti (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Saku Ytti (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice marcel.duregards () yahoo fr (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Matthew Petach (Oct 30)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 30)