On 10/Nov/16 23:53, Charles van Niman wrote:
> I don't think Nick asked for a list, just one single thing, any one > thing. To me at least, it doesn't really make sense to make the > statement you did, without pointing out what can be done to improve > the situation. I would be very interested to hear what network > requirements are not being met with Juniper's current IS-IS > implementation. To be honest, none that I can think of. Many of the feature differences are vendor-specific, particularly with how you can further optimize IS-IS to handle LSP's flooding, flushing, re-calculation, throttling, e.t.c. Bottom line, Juniper fully supports the IS-IS spec., from what we see. Mark.
