Oops, forgot link. Cooking dinner :) http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/
On Nov 10, 2016 6:53 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <j...@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....@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 <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 >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> >> >>
