Re: IGP Comparison (Summary of Responses)
hsmit@cisco.com (Henk Smit) writes:
"There were also non-technical considerations. Many people felt that it was better that the IETF have complete control over the OSPF protocol design rather than depend on an ISO committee whose goals, namely to produce a routing protocol for the OSI protocol stack, were somewhat different."(2)
This is all history, and should not be a reason for you to pick one protocol over the other. The IETF has become what OSI was (and even worse). Right now there are active OSPF *and* IS-IS workgroups. The IETF can extend IS-IS as much as is needed.
We should also point out that the IETF is now an OSI liason organization and can make contributions to the ISO process. Further, given the technical expertise of the folks working in the IETF, the effective death of CLNP, and the fact that a significant proportion of the systems running IS-IS are actually doing so to forward IP, any contributions made by the IETF will be taken very seriously by ISO. Regards, Tony Li IS-IS WG co-chair
Btw, I doubt anyone pay attention to the IS-IS and OSPF feature differences when choose IGP protocol, usially this protocols are treated as _EQUAL - IS-IS is more complex to configure, and that's the only real difference for real life_, but pay attention to the vendors (CISCO realised IS-IS later and this realisation was better than OSPF's, IS-IS is not common-vendor protocol, IS-IS allow you to use OSPF for the customer's routing and readvertise OSPF into IS-IS, and so on... On 5 Jan 1999, Tony Li wrote:
Date: 05 Jan 1999 23:03:50 +0000 From: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net> To: Henk Smit <hsmit@cisco.com> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IGP Comparison (Summary of Responses)
hsmit@cisco.com (Henk Smit) writes:
"There were also non-technical considerations. Many people felt that it was better that the IETF have complete control over the OSPF protocol design rather than depend on an ISO committee whose goals, namely to produce a routing protocol for the OSI protocol stack, were somewhat different."(2)
This is all history, and should not be a reason for you to pick one protocol over the other. The IETF has become what OSI was (and even worse). Right now there are active OSPF *and* IS-IS workgroups. The IETF can extend IS-IS as much as is needed.
We should also point out that the IETF is now an OSI liason organization and can make contributions to the ISO process. Further, given the technical expertise of the folks working in the IETF, the effective death of CLNP, and the fact that a significant proportion of the systems running IS-IS are actually doing so to forward IP, any contributions made by the IETF will be taken very seriously by ISO.
Regards, Tony Li IS-IS WG co-chair
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
participants (2)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
Tony Li