mailing list archives
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS
From: Stefan Fouant <sfouant () shortestpathfirst net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:35:48 -0400
I'll go with that... And one other thing... Traditionally it has been easier for developers to add new features to
IS-IS because of the structure and flexibility of TLVs, whereas OSPF required the design of entirely new LSA types to
support similar capabilities... I guess this has become less of an issue over the last few years however...
Nonetheless, if I was building a greenfield network today, I would personally go with IS-IS, but that is largely
because of my many years working with the protocol...
JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is
due to the fact that IS-IS is decoupled from IP making it less
vulnerable to attacks.
how about simpler and more stable?
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Randy Bush (Aug 11)
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Joel Jaeggli (Aug 12)
Re: OSPF vs IS-IS Jason Duerstock (Aug 11)