On 22/Oct/15 21:35, Dave Bell wrote:
> I'm unsure if this is a serious argument, but its such a poor point > today. Everything has to be connected to a level 2 in IS-IS. If you > want a flat area 0 network in OSPF, go nuts. As long as you are > sensible about what you put in your IGP, both IS-IS and OSPF scale > very well. > > The differences between the two protocols are so small, that people > really grasp at straws when 'proving' that one is better over the > other. 'IS-IS doesn't work over IP, so its more secure'. 'IS-IS uses > TLVs so new features are quicker to implement'. While these may be > vaguely valid arguments, they don't hold much water. If you don't > secure your routers to bad actors forming OSPF adjacencies with you, > you're doing something wrong.Who is running code that is so bleeding > edge that feature X might be available for IS-IS, but not OSPF? > > Chose whichever you and your operational team are most comfortable > with, and run with it. OSPFv3 scaled better than OSPFv2 in 2008. But multi-AF support for OSPFv3 was only developing then, so that was not a viable replacement for OSPFv2. OSPFv2 should scale better in 2015 (I say "should" because more routers now have x86-based control planes, but I don't run OSPF so I'm hand-waving). You're right, a single Level-2 domain in IS-IS is akin to a single Area 0 in OSPF. But those "so small" differences between the protocols in 2008 meant I was less eager to try the single area with OSPF than I was the single level with IS-IS. Mark.
