The endless story of OSPF vs IS-IS – Part 2 “The history”

In our previous post we started consolidating the endless story of OSPF vs IS-IS, in this post we will cover the historical part of the story, it might not be interesting for some people, but I do believe that the history is what makes the future, so please bare with me through this post.

The IS-IS protocol was developed in 1987 by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) as part of DECnet Phase V. and was standardized later in 1992 by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in ISO/IEC 10589:1992, the second and current edition ISO/IEC 10589:2002 cancels and replaces the first edition.

NOTE You can download the electronic version of International Standards from the ISO/IEC Information Technology Task Force (ITTF) web site: http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html

IS-IS was originally designed to support Connectionless Network Protocol (CLNP) and was later adapted by the IETF in RFC 1195 “Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments” to support IP (Integrated or Dual IS-IS). Both the IP and CLNP information is carried within the payload of the IS-IS routing updates – Unlike IP routing protocols that use IP packets, IS-IS doesn’t use CLNP packets, rather it uses its own packets that again carries either IP or CLNP (or anything else) information as a payload for its own packets – IS-IS encapsulates its packets/PDUs directly in the data-link layer.

IS-IS was designed to be extensible. RFC 1195 defined IS-IS support for IPv4, and additional IETF extensions have defined IS-IS support for IPv6, MPLS TE, and more to go (check TRILL to know how deep is it). The Cisco IOS IS-IS implementation supports CLNP, IPv4, and IPv6, while Juniper JUNOS implementation supports only IPv4 and IPv6.

On the other hand in 1988, the IETF began work on a replacement for RIP, which was proving impracticality for large scale networks with scalability and convergence issues. It was clear that any replacement for RIP had to be based on a link-state shortest path algorithm just like IS-IS. The Open Shortest Path First Working Group was born in 1987. The OSPF-WG group closely watched the IS-IS developments and both standardization bodies, the IETF and ISO, effectively copied ideas from each other, after all mostly the same individuals were working on both protocols.

I quote from Dave Katz “IS-IS and OSPF: A Comparative Anatomy”: “OSPF work begins, loosely based on IS-IS mechanisms (LS protocols are hard!)”.

OSPF v.1 RFC was published in 1989, and the first implementation of OSPF Version 1 was shipped by router vendor Proteon. In 1990, the Dual-mode IS-IS RFC 1195 was published. In 1991, OSPF v.2 RFC was published (was updated a couple of times until finally the famous RFC 2328 in 1998) and Cisco shipped OSPF, while Cisco shipped only OSI-only IS-IS, later on in 1992 Cisco shipped dual IS-IS.

In 1995 ISPs begin deployment of IS-IS and some even switched form OSPF to it, Cisco solidified its IS-IS implementation, and any vendor targeting large ISPs had to have a solid IS-IS implementation and thus Juniper and other vendors shipped IS-IS capable routers in the late 1990s.

The current status is that you’ll most probably be seeing IS-IS in large service provider networks, and OSPF in medium-to-large enterprise networks.

For more information check the IETF working groups for both OSPF and IS-IS:

OSPF IETF Working Group:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ospf/charter/

IS-IS IETF Working Group:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/isis/charter/

I hope that I’ve been informative, moving on we should be going into details.


No related posts.


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Leave a Reply