On 2013-05-28 10:32, Mark Tinka wrote:
I suppose the biggest issue I have with UNIX-based routers
is the poor IS-IS support.
pfSense does make sense (in theory) as a router. I haven't
deployed it beyond a corporate LAN perimetre (still talking
to a regular router upstream).
I do agree - in a large, heterogenous, complex-topology network, IS-IS
proved to be a winner both for its reliability and the simplicity of
configuration.
I suspect one of the main reasons we don't see UNIX IS-IS
implementations is the hard requirement for an ISO address. There are
ways of faking that, however, which is what I suspect Quagga does.
In a green-field implementation (or anywhere there's a clearly-defined
border), RIPv2 is actually a very usable protocol. Most people hear
"RIP" and think of the old RIPv1 protocol, which had major issues, but
RIPv2 is pretty clean and simple to deploy in production. It's not a
multi-protocol routing protocol, however, so in a complex network it
might still not be suitable. It does have some attributes of its legacy
predecessor, but they're mostly ignorable on modern hardware. Don't
deploy it on 64kbps links, though...
Having said that, I'd still rather deploy RIPv2 than OSPF, given a
choice.
-Adam Thompson
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
