So, we need to narrow the discussion now to only commercial solutions? This is fun and all (not really) but you can have your thread. Congrats, you win. I'm not sure what. On Nov 10, 2016 7:01 PM, "Tim Jackson" <jackson.tim@gmail.com> wrote:
So what about commercial implementations?
-- Tim
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :)
On Nov 10, 2016 6:53 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
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.tim@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 <josh@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" <charles@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 <josh@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" <nick@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 >> >>