On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:14:08PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2012-07-23 13:55 +0200), Daniel Roesen wrote: > > > Actually, I see it came in 12.0(10)S, so it was there, but we were > > running OSPF, not IS-IS, so no help. > > Aye. Some dirt towards cisco too, it is ridiculous you don't have feature > parity in ISIS and OSPF in things like these, these should use common > codepath, single file in source code repo for any half decent design.
To cut Cisco some slack, OSPF has no simple overload bit, so you have to raise your link metrics all the way for a somewhat crude and limited emulation of IS-IS' overload bit. There are still possible setups where an OSPF-based wannabe-overload replica doesn't work like IS-IS overload would do and still lead to blackholing. Although that would be quite specific/special scenarios. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email protected] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
