So we stick to OSPF, because no one wants to complicate things, unfortunately as we integrate more services, I doubt we will sustain the current architectures.<div><br></div><div><br>On Wednesday, August 24, 2016, Stephen Munguti &lt;<a href="mailto:kamitu.sm@gmail.com">kamitu.sm@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">In large scale proper MPLS networks. <div><br></div><div>IS-IS supports TE integration</div><div>IS-IS uses tlvs which makes it easier to extend it capabilities.</div><div>Can handle both IPv6 and IPv4</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>That said none of the kenyan ISP I have seen have P routers, Just interlinked PE routers. No carrier supporting carrier integrations, no interprovider MPLS customers, no multicast MPLS integrations and hence my earlier comments.</div><div><br></div><div><br>On Wednesday, August 24, 2016, Michuki Mwangi via skunkworks &lt;<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke&#39;);" target="_blank">skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Kennedy, et al<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Kennedy Aseda via skunkworks <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a>skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">In terms of functionality, I do not think either has advantage over the other. However there could be reasons why one would prefer one IGP over the other:</p>
<p dir="ltr">1. Provider network environment - do all you equipment support the IGP? Vendor support for the IGP in relation to MPLS TE and other technologies you want to support.</p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Huh! you mean vendor cool-aid? Best of luck!.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">2. Availability of technical expertise for the IGP</p></blockquote><div>Perhaps. But if an engineer understands the concepts the IGP can always be learned in a short while. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">3. Ease of deployment and scaling. ISIS is easier to deploy and scale on IPv4/IPv6 dual stack environment compared to OSPF which requires separate processes and area design.</p></blockquote><div>A good engineer is a lazy engineer ;) </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p dir="ltr">It&#39;s a matter of organization choice in my opinion</p><div><div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I tend to think it is boils down to either the vendor influence for large networks and comfort of the lead network engineer/CTO for medium to small networks. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Michuki.</div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br><br>Best Regards,<br>Stephen Munguti.<br><br><span style="color:rgb(0,204,204);font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">+254720425104</span><br><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br><br>Best Regards,<br>Stephen Munguti.<br><br><span style="color:rgb(0,204,204);font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">+254720425104</span><br><br>