Em qui., 13 de fev. de 2025 às 08:35, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > Speaking as WG member: > > On Feb 12, 2025, at 19:43, Tony Li <tony.li@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Robert, > > With that I recommend to look a bit broader and count how many robust, scalable and production grade open source implementations have we seen of ISIS when comparing with the very same of BGP. > > I will let the reader guess why it looks as it looks .... why it is so much easier to take few BGP RFCs and implement at least some essential parts of protocol with required address families in a deployable way. > > > > Let’s not let the reader guess. > > IS-IS is less popular than BGP. This should not be news. IS-IS has competition in the IGP space. BGP has no competition. > > Show me the complaints from the open-source IS-IS implementors who cannot figure out the spec. Based on that empty set, I don’t think that there’s an issue. > > > For example, FRR https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/tree/master/isisd supports IS-IS. FWIW, I know of three other IS-IS open-source implementations: * Holo (Rust): https://github.com/holo-routing/holo * Bio-Routing (Go): https://github.com/bio-routing/bio-rd * freeRtr (Java): https://github.com/mc36/freeRtr >From my perspective, having written the Holo IS-IS implementation (which is still a work in progress), I don't think there's a problem of underspecification. I personally found all RFCs and the ISO standard to be very precise and well written. Regards, Renato. -- Renato Westphal -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
