I would be one to suggest that OSPF scales far better than EIGRP. From what I
understand, the dual algorithm and large networks do not get along well. I have very
little experience with large scale EIGRP however.
Pete
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/16/2000 at 3:47 PM Rik Guyler wrote:
>Like I said, so sayeth the SE. I spoke with design engineers at GE (General
>Electric) earlier this year and they supported that statement. They had
>scalability issues with OSPF running on their 3000+ router global network
>and decided to migrate to EIGRP instead, which the aforementioned SE (CCIE
>3xxx or so) agrees with.
>
>I know absolutely nothing about IS-IS, so this is not my opinion, only a
>repeat from those that know much more than me! ;-}
>
>Rik
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William Gragido
>To: 'Rik Guyler'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 11/16/00 5:38 PM
>Subject: RE: IS-IS use??
>
>IS-IS is most definetly still alive and kicking. The US military
>utilizes
>it, and it works very well. OSPF is a different animal, and Rik, I
>would
>disagree with your statement as to its scalability. IS-IS was designed
>to
>provide complete non-vendor dependent integration at the request of the
>US
>Government(ie Military), to accomadate its World Wide network.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Rik Guyler
>Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 11:50 AM
>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: RE: IS-IS use??
>
>
>Well, I believe that Cisco's take on this is that OSPF does not scale as
>well for very large networks as does IS-IS. At least so sayeth an
>instructor SE that I happen to know.
>
>Rik
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 11/16/00 1:20 PM
>Subject: RE: IS-IS use??
>
>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
>
>
>
>________________________
>
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>http://www.priscilla.com
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
