So what about commercial implementations? -- Tim
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > 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 >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >>>> >>> >>>