On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 05:41:11 PM Adam Thompson wrote: > 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.
In many ways, I find it simpler than OSPF. But let's not start a war :-). > 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. Implementation of HMAC IIH and LSP authentication in Quagga was also very poor. In a network where we ran Anycast DNS with the name servers, it was easier to run OSPF on the servers and carefully redisribute into IS-IS within the core. > 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. I generally stay away from RIP. Link state routing protocols tend to be a lot more superior in their fundamental design than their distance vector cousins. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
