— 6 Comments —

  1. Hi Orhan,

    This Routing Protocols Design Comparison chart looks cool. However, for some rows, I am not sure what features are compared.

    Cedar

  2. Hi Orhan,

    What I can see on the chart are the results of the compared features without knowing what features are compared. For example, it shows “easy easy easy complex” but does not show what is easy. Is the first column of the chart missed?

    Cedar

  3. Hi,

    Regarding OSPF & ISIS

    It says ,they work well with full mesh ,at same time it says not suitable for DCs ,because DCs are full mesh .

    Can you explain it please .

    Regards
    Hessam

    • IS-IS has mesh group to reduce flooding , OSPF has similar mechanism as well for the full mesh. When you compare the link state with distance and path vector protocols , they are handling the control plane chattiness more effectively, but DC topologies not only full mesh but also so much parallel links.

      Reducing the flooding with existing OSPF mechanisms is hard but reducing of it is not only problem for OSPF to be used in DC.

      Traffic Engineering , Parallel links , not sending topology to everywhere , especially to the TORs etc just few of them and BGP handles all of them better than OSPF. Thus BGP is considered as better IGP in large scale DCs. If it is not large scale, comparison chart is not critical anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.