>At 09:38 AM 11/16/00, Spolidoro, Guilherme wrote:
>
>>UUNet for example uses IS-IS on their core while the rest (or the majority)
>>of the ISPs use OSPF. I wonder why UUNet chosed for IS-IS instead of OSPF.
>>Maybe somebody on the list has an answer?
>>
>>Today I would chose OSPF over IS-IS because:
>>
>>- much more vendors support OSPF compared to IS-IS
>>- it's my perception that OSPF is the direction chosen by IETF,
>
>
>A few years ago a bunch of people wore T-shirts to an IETF meeting
>that said, "IS-IS=0." They did this to bug Radia Perlman. &;-) It
>didn't work. These days the IETF seems to do a lot of work on both
>IS-IS and OSPF. For a while it looked like we could get by without
>knowing IS-IS. I don't think that's true anymore. The pendulum has
>swung back in its favor.
>
>Priscilla
>
The IETF IS-IS working group is quite happily extending the protocol
to reflect the modern networking environment. Indeed, it can be
argued that it's becoming a new technology for IS-IS.
The Working Group, however, threw things at me when I suggested a
better name for the enhanced version might be IS-ISNT.
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
