On 11/Nov/16 02:00, Josh Reynolds wrote:
> 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. I (as I suppose most) would consider full spec. support of the protocol to be a bare minimum and acceptable for production. Non-spec. extensions are nice-to-have. Spec. extensions are part of the bare minimum, and would be supported. I'm all for having no configurations on a router - that way, there are fewer avenues to cause network problems. But, we do need configurations on routers to make them work. So if I don't really the knob, it's no good having it there in the first place. Mark.
