Uh.........
I quote: > Cisco is the only "real" IS-IS vendor. > Juniper, Brocade, Arista, Avaya, etc you're not getting it. Any of the > whitebox hardware or real SDN capable solutions, you're going to be on OSPF. Care to elaborate on any of those commercial vendors? -- Tim On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > So, we need to narrow the discussion now to only commercial solutions? > > This is fun and all (not really) but you can have your thread. > > Congrats, you win. I'm not sure what. > > On Nov 10, 2016 7:01 PM, "Tim Jackson" <jackson....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>