Here's a start! "Support for OSPFv3 and IS-IS is various beta states currently; IS-IS for IPv4 is believed to be usable while OSPFv3 and IS-IS for IPv6 have known issues."
On Nov 10, 2016 6:50 PM, "Tim Jackson" <jackson....@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe you didn't look hard enough? > > ISIS feature support in a bunch of different products has sucked for a > long time vs OSPF, but that's a pretty well known and accepted fact. > Generally these features are the same across multiple products from the > same vendor (usually across the same OS anyway)... > > Just name 1 feature that was in Cisco and wasn't in other > implementations........... Just one.. Something.. Does ISIS on IOS make and > hand out ice cream on Fridays? I want to know if I'm missing out.. > > -- > Tim > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> > wrote: > >> My first post said the following: >> >> "Vendor support for IS-IS is quite limited - many options for OSPF." >> >> On Nov 10, 2016 6:24 PM, "Charles van Niman" <char...@phukish.com> wrote: >> >> > Your original point was that a list of vendors "didn't get IS-IS" but >> > provided no details about what you are talking about. As far as all >> > the documentation I have read, and some of the documentation you >> > linked to, it works just fine on quite a few vendors, and a few people >> > on this list. Your original point mentions nothing about wider OSPF >> > adoption, which you seem to have shifted to to deflect having to >> > provide any actual details. >> > >> > Are we to assume that your original point was incorrect? As far as the >> > landscape as a whole, I have seen quite a few networks that get by >> > with either protocol just fine, the use-case for a given network is >> > not such a broad landscape, so I think "use the right tool for the >> > job" seems very apt, and that you can't just say that only two >> > protocols are suitable for all jobs. >> > >> > /Charles >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> > wrote: >> > > As cute as your impotent white knighting of one vendor is (I very much >> > like >> > > Juniper BTW), you're absolutely ignoring my original premise and point >> > > because you got your panties in a wad over a potential triviality of >> an >> > > internet comment - where documentation exists, should one take the >> time >> > to >> > > go through it, to find discrepancies between them. >> > > >> > > So, if you'd like to prove your point and earn brownie points with >> > $vendor, >> > > on a feature by feature basis please take the time to consult >> > documentation >> > > of two vendors products (you can even pick the platform and subversion >> > > release!) to refute my claim. This has nothing at all to do with the >> > point >> > > of my statement mind you, it's simply a sidetrack that has wasted >> enough >> > > time already. >> > > >> > > That said, glance across the landscape as a whole of all of the >> routing >> > > platforms out there. Hardware AND softwsre. Which ones support bare >> bones >> > > IS-IS? Which ones have a decent subset of extensions? Are they >> comparable >> > > or compatible with others? The end result is a *very mixed bag*, with >> far >> > > more not supporting IS-IS at all, or only supporting the bare minimum >> to >> > > even go by that name in a datasheet. >> > > >> > > Thus, my point stands. If you want as much flexibility in your >> > environment >> > > as you can have, you want OSPF or BGP as your IGP. >> > > >> > > On Nov 10, 2016 5:33 PM, "Nick Hilliard" <n...@foobar.org> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Josh Reynolds wrote: >> > >> > I didn't "trash talk" a vendor. If I did, it would be a >> multi-thousand >> > >> > line hate fueled rant with examples and enough colorful language to >> > make >> > >> > submarine crews blush. >> > >> >> > >> I have no doubt it would be the best rant. It would be a beautiful >> > rant. >> > >> >> > >> Entertaining and all as hand-waving may be, please let us know if you >> > >> manage to unearth any actual facts to support the claims that you >> made >> > >> about junos's alleged feature deficits. >> > >> >> > >> Nick >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >