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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
