So some people have said that IS-IS is more scalable because it doesn't run
Dijsktra as much as OSPF does. OK, then why not? Is it because of the
partial-routing update thing, or is there more to it?
Also, I agree that IS-IS level-1 areas are by their nature "totally stubby".
But that doesn't completely explain why real-world IS-IS networks have been
shown to be more scalable than real-world OSPF networks, because if this was
the cause, then it would seem to me that you could just scale OSPF to the
same level of IS-IS just by making non-backbone areas totally stubby. Yet,
apparently nobody has been able to scale OSPF like that, which indicates to
me that it's not that simple.
So I must ask again, what exactly is it about IS-IS that seems to make it
more scalable overall than OSPF? And, as a side question, could OSPF be
reasonably adjusted to accomodate greater scalability?
I would especially like to invite Howard Berkowitz, aka Sir Network Deity,
to answer this question.
Thanx
""NRF"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello
>
> Several people have asserted that IS-IS (for IP) has demonstrated more
> scalability than OSPF. What accounts for this? I have heard that it has
> to do with IS-IS being able to take advantage of Partial-route Updates
when
> IP information changes, as opposed to running Dijkstra all the time, is
that
> the only factor, or are there other reasons?
>
> Thanx
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5403&t=5207
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
