The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2004-Jan> msg00090



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Re: Re: OSPF and IS IS

  • From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:09:16 -0500
  • Cc: <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
  • Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:50:53 -0500
  • To: "Piotr Marecki" <piotr.marecki@tdcinternet.pl>
  • X-Sender: jvasseur@wells.cisco.com

At 11:54 PM 1/28/2004 +0100, Piotr Marecki wrote:
> > >
> > >Which is not always true unfortunately .Latest example is diffserv aware
>TE
> > >implementation
> > >introduced in junos 6.2 .Only protocol so far supported to distribute
>ds-TE
> > >information is OSPF.
> > >Bad luck...
> >
> > Eric's point was just to say that some features may be implemented first
>in
> > one IGP or another indifferently ... this was just an example
> >
> >
>
>Lot's of us  tend to think that "bleeding edge" means IS-IS because of it
>simplicity and
>flexibilility . Honestly OSPF with opaque LSA are flexible enough , and
>moreover OSPF
>provide more control and granurality when it comes to distribute information
>( is-is node has to announce entire
>lsp , whether ospf need to announce changed opaque LSA).
>Still , i would vote for is-is :)

endless debate frankly, there are undoubtedly some minor pros and cons but 
they are equivalent in many respects.

JP.


>regards
>
>
>Piotr Marecki

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml