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 <j...@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" <char...@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 <j...@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" <n...@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 > > >> > > >> > > >
