From: Scott Morris (smorris@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Sat Aug 09 2008 - 14:18:35 ART
Stable is a frame of mind. :)
There are some very nice things about IS-IS, particularly when it comes to
adding extensions without waiting for the whole world to modify an RFC!
The structure is different from an area viewpoint, which makes TE in MPLS
networks much simpler. TE and the TED are not part of our R&S adventures,
so we don't need to care!
There are more commands allowing simpler modification of timers and other
behaviors in OSPF. There's also a lot more experienced folks out there with
OSPF than IS-IS!
So it all depends on what you are looking for! For a ROUTING protocol, and
summarization/border points, I'd venture to say that OSPF is easier. For
MPLS TE, I'd say IS-IS is easier.
I'm sure there are other opinions and certainly other details, but that's a
good start.
IS-IS is more scalable in terms of number of devices per area than OSPF is,
but unless you are running a massive network, you likely don't care about
that!
Cheers,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 #4713, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
Senior CCIE Instructor
smorris@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Outside US: 775-826-4344
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
yungli2008@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:03 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: OT:- IS-IS
Hi experts
The IS-IS routing protocol not in R&S but in SP.
I heard some large enterprises and ISPs networks still using IS-IS Is IS-IS
more stable than all other IGPs? if yes means then why Cisco trying to avoid
IS-IS?
Li
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 01 2008 - 08:15:29 ART