Em qui., 13 de fev. de 2025 às 08:35, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> escreveu: > > Speaking as WG member: > > On Feb 12, 2025, at 19:43, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Robert, > > With that I recommend to look a bit broader and count how many robust, > scalable and production grade open source implementations have we seen of > ISIS when comparing with the very same of BGP. > > I will let the reader guess why it looks as it looks .... why it is so much > easier to take few BGP RFCs and implement at least some essential parts of > protocol with required address families in a deployable way. > > > > Let’s not let the reader guess. > > IS-IS is less popular than BGP. This should not be news. IS-IS has > competition in the IGP space. BGP has no competition. > > Show me the complaints from the open-source IS-IS implementors who cannot > figure out the spec. Based on that empty set, I don’t think that there’s an > issue. > > > For example, FRR https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/tree/master/isisd supports > IS-IS.
FWIW, I know of three other IS-IS open-source implementations: * Holo (Rust): https://github.com/holo-routing/holo * Bio-Routing (Go): https://github.com/bio-routing/bio-rd * freeRtr (Java): https://github.com/mc36/freeRtr >From my perspective, having written the Holo IS-IS implementation (which is still a work in progress), I don't think there's a problem of underspecification. I personally found all RFCs and the ISO standard to be very precise and well written. Regards, Renato. -- Renato Westphal _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
