[c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?

[heh heh]

Welcome the miracle of tacacs.

On 4/21/07, Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 07:50:32PM +0200, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
> > omar parihuana <> wrote on Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:32 PM:
> >
> > > Hi list,
> > >
> > > We're redesigning a small MPLS Network (about 30 PE Routers and 2 P
> > > Routers -Link between P-PE: Ethernet-), so far the IGP is OSPF,
> > > however  ISIS was proposed too.  What is the best? IS-IS or OSPF? and
> > > Why? regarding the small network.
> >
> > check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to
> > "use what you're most comfortable and familiar with", and as you're
> > using OSPF already, the choice should be clear.
>
> Possibly the single most annoying difference is that Cisco uses the
> command "ip router isis <tag>" to activate isis on an interface, vs just
> "ip ospf" with no "router". Now imagine you're tired and trying to take
> isis off an interface, and instead of typing "no ip router isis" you
> accidentally type "no router isis", and guess what happens. :)
>
> --
> Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>