OSPF vs IS-IS

[sfouant at shortestpathfirst.net (Stefan Fouant)]

I'll go with that... And one other thing... Traditionally it has been easier for developers to add new features to IS-IS because of the structure and flexibility of TLVs, whereas OSPF required the design of entirely new LSA types to support similar capabilities... I guess this has become less of an issue over the last few years however...

Nonetheless, if I was building a greenfield network today, I would personally go with IS-IS, but that is largely because of my many years working with the protocol...

Stefan Fouant
JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI
Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks
http://www.shortestpathfirst.net
http://www.twitter.com/sfouant

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 11, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

>> The only reason in my opinion to run IS-IS rather than OSPF today is
>> due to the fact that IS-IS is decoupled from IP making it less
>> vulnerable to attacks.
> 
> how about simpler and more stable?
> 
> randy