I just wonder… Why MT has not supported IS-IS?
Its just sooooo coooooooooool protocol…
I don’t see any reason why MT needs IS-IS, it already have OSPF which is also coooool protocol 
Well… Cisco and Juniper also have OSPF but that didnt stopped them thinking: well IS-IS is… IS-IS after all
It is thinking of big league players…
Any specific reason why you can’t use OSPF instead IS-IS
I think you don’t understand my question. My point isn’t which protocol is better… Although, I think IS-IS is better primary because everyone who knows thematic know that IS-IS better use available bandwidth as CPU and memory.
Back on topic… My point is why MT hasn’t supported it? Is it because of some kind of license or something like that? Ićm just curious…
Cheers 
OSPF provides more features and is supported by all devices. IS-IS is similar, but provides less features, and is not suported by all devices.
Hmm … 
I must admit I’m an IS-IS fan as well, and I believe that it does a few things better than OSPF, such as the TLV concept making it much more flexible. Read http://www.nada.kth.se/kurser/kth/2D1490/06/hemuppgifter/bhatia-manral-diff-isis-ospf-01.txt.html for a good analysis of the various differences.
However, I don’t think IS-IS should be a focus for MikroTik at the moment. They would have to invent an ISO-protocol stack with CLNS, ISO addressing and all that in order to make it work. There are no such implementations for Linux, so they would have to engineer it from the bottom. I believe that MikroTik should focus on the areas they are already involved in, trying to extend the protocols they support, eg. extending the current MPLS implementation, extend IPv6, extend BGP etc.
Out of curiosity, what are your motivations for requesting IS-IS support? If you have a large telecom backbone that runs IS-IS, do you want to place MikroTik equipment inside of that backbone (no critique meant, just plain curiosity)?
I found this excellent blog post about integrated IS-IS vs. OSPF, and it does an excellent job on explaining why IS-IS can be superior to OSPF… Again, I still stand with my previous post on why MikroTik shouldn’t work on IS-IS yet…
http://packetrancher.com/the-service-provider-igp-question-ospf-or-integrated-is-is/
No ofcourse. I am network admin in my company (over 12 big factories in one system with over 4000 employee). We have cisco routers everywhere but also, we have mikrotik routers for wireless on few places (ap access and p2p links). I was considering is-is but MT inability was discouraged me. I could do redistribution but that just make my configuration more complicated so I stayed with ospf.
Regards!
another reason for is-is is because it support both ipv4 and ipv6, so we only need to run 1 ibgp protocol, not two as in ospf
what? ibgp <> ospf.
OSPF and OSPFv3 handle IPv4 and IPv6 so whats the comparison here?
quess he meant IGP
with IS-IS you have one protocol daemon instead of two, the less complicity the better
with IS-IS you have one protocol daemon instead of two, the less complicity the better[/quote]
ok, I won’t completely argue that point but having separate daemons too me means simplicity because I think it’s easier to handle IPv4 and IPv6 nuances separately. Things are less muddled.
Typically ISIS is used in larger provider networks as it scales a bit better when you start getting to networks that have thousands of routers. OSPF is perfectly capable of handling several thousand routers if designed properly. They both use the same SPF algorithm and are very similar.
That said, because ISIS is so prevalent in the carrier and cloud world as an IGP, it would be nice to have it as a native protocol.
ISIS is also being used at Layer 2 to replace spanning tree in newer bridging technologies like TRILL, SPB and Cisco’s FabricPath
To say that one protocol is better than the other really isn’t the argument. They were both developed around the same time, if anything OSPF was the lazy approach to implementation by tying you to IPv4. What IS-IS does give you that OSPF cannot is protocol independence. One protocol to handle v4 and v6 address families among others. You wouldn’t have to run a separate protocol like you do with OSPF. But I do understand that there are alot of devices in certain market segments that just don’t have IS-IS as an option. But this feature is something that could help Mikrotik become an even more serious contender in the service provider space.
i guess for same reason why CISCO didn’t support things like IPIP and other MikroTik -specific things(there was Several and many of them STILL remain Very popular among MT consumers).
i bit wonder more lack support of things like say PCP and other, really “meaningful”, usable things.
I think that the lack of IS-IS on Mikrotik’s roadmap is going to be my reason from turning away from them. Other open source routing platforms are getting better and have some sort of basic IS-IS implimentation. But this might just not be a good space for Mikrotik to play in.
We have multiple vendors routers in our networks, Juniper, Cisco, Nokia and Mikrotik.
All but Mikrotik support ISIS 
so for now we are running OSPF as our IGP.
We would love to move to ISIS due to:
- Less complex architecture at scale
- Layer2 protocol minimises attack surface
- Support for IPv4 and IPv6 natively
- Support for extended functionality due to TLV support, e.g. signalling remote COS re-write via ISIS…
Mikrotik, please consider adding ISIS to RouterOS. The protocol is well documented, and there are several open source implementations to use as references.
+1 to add IS-IS to Router OS.
I think we would be able to to build larger IGP flooding domains with IS-IS due to features like incremental SPF - especially since the Tilera processor doesn’t do as well under a heavy computational load like what we have seen in large BGP table sizes and slow convergence speed.
Typically from what i’ve seen with my ISP clients is that we can get a few thousand routes in a MikroTik based OSPF network (in the same area) before convergence speeds start to suffer due to heavy OSPF database updates.