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

[Jeff Tantsura]

Hi,

It has to do with protocols design.
For new extensions IS-IS just needs a new TLV while OSPF requires some
serious changes.
>From my observation:
 few years ago most of new features came out first for ISIS
 last year I see some stuff coming for OSPF first:
 flooding of mesh group info for MPLS TE is supported by OSPF only, 
 some other stuff as well

Cheers,
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
> Sent: dinsdag 24 april 2007 15:54
> To: Joe Shen
> Cc: nsp
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:42:46AM +0800, Joe Shen wrote:
> > And, to my knowledge, technical research on OSPF is
> > more fertile than IS-IS, and new feature is introduced
> > to OSPF eariler than IS-IS.
> 
> Well - this is something opinions differ on, given that IPv6 could very
> easily be added to IS-IS, while they had to do a completely new protocol
> (OSPFv3) to be able to make it do IPv6...
> 
> I think IS-IS is more elegant due to the way it does v4 and v6 basically
> in a single protocol, all in one go, and with OSPF you need to run two
> routing instances mostly doing the same, but independently so - but
> OTOH, IS-IS using OSI transport, which means "if your IP stack breaks,
> your routing protocol might still happily assign reachability" (which
> did happen to BT some years ago).
> 
> So in summary - use whatever you're familiar with, and what works for you.
> 
> gert
> --
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
> 
> //www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
> gert at greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-
> muenchen.de
> _______________________________________________
> 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/