I’ve got to say, Why not support an inherently better protocol? IS-IS, while bad in the middle east, is great in ISPs. The largest ISPs don’t use OSPF for a reason, and BGP isn’t going to improve on the tilera processors any time soon. At least not to the point that makes it usable with multiple peers and full tables
Please add support for IS-IS as it is far superior to OSPF (including how it handles tree changes). It would also make configuring large routed networks be far less of a headache.
+1 for IS-IS
I don’t think it will ever show up in v6 but we may see it in v7 whenever that comes out. 
Can’t tell if those are the words of a man who has had a sneak peek of something…
…or words that are heavily laden in sarcasm! 
I’d really like to know where hell I can use it in real life, so please tell the truth
So to say, I have neither ISPs to establish ISIS with, nor software/hardware within the LAN to use it internally.
But the proto is nice, really.
#2
IS-IS can scale much larger than OSPF due to the way it designs the hierarchy of flooding domains and by using Incremental SPF. This is why it’s used as the IGP of choice for most large ISPs and Data Centers
I have an ISP customer with around 200 POP’s and OSPF scalability is a real problem. We have had to make active efforts to remove any dynamic interfaces from OSPF and reduce the prefix count to minimise SPF re-calculations from loading up router CPU’s. IS-IS would vastly minimise these specific problems.
I recently found out at the European MUM that OSPFv2 has a bug that will only allow 120 LSAs under certain conditions and cannot fragment the data beyond a single packet in the OSPF database exchange. The workaround is to use the highest MTU possible but it still can’t be fixed in the current RouterOS version.
Wonder if this is at the root of issues with large scale OSPF deployments that we’ve seen
We have an ISP struggling with power hungry Ciscos at their towers because they implement IS-IS …
Has Mikrotik changed its position on this …!!!
Should we expect anything
Thank you.
Looks like MT has a lot to implement beside IS-IS.
Anyway noone will use MT devices instead of Ciscos or Jun’s in ISP environment.
We do not have plans to implement ISIS at least not in near future.
Regarding the 200+ PoP scaling issue…
Yes, IS-IS scales “better”, but you shouldn’t really be running into issues at that size even with OSPF in a single area…
Best practice for a network that large is to put only loopbacks and link-nets into your IGP (be it OSPF, IS-IS, or even EIGRP), while keeping all other networks in BGP (via Loopback addresses and next-hop-self) with the BGP routes recursively resolving against the IGP routes. Reflectors (with next-hop-propagate, not next-hop-self!) will help that scale.
This keeps OSPF stable and fast, and the number of routes it needs to deal with to a minimum of the number of routers, plus the number of links between them.
Personally, I’d go further and make it a multi-service transport network, by adding in MPLS and constraining BGP to the edge (without it, all routers will need BGP); but if IP is your only thing, and you can tolerate excessive BGP sessions, it isn’t necessary.
–Eric
What are those conditions? I haven’t seen anything like that, and checking just now, I have 296 ‘router’ LSAs and 344 ‘network’ LSAs (plus 4 external LSAs that shouldn’t be there… got some fixing to do there :-/ ), all working fine.
–Eric
OSPF just for BGP, can scale out to thousands. ISIS for this role is just lazy.
+1 for IS-IS
+1000 for EIGRP which is not Cisco proprietary and hasn’t been for years
There now is a Linux implementation of IS-IS (and multithreaded BGP) and it was suggested multiple times to Mikrotik: https://frrouting.org/
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/bgp-multithreaded/115824/11
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/crowd-funding-of-v7/125362/10
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/bgp-ipv6-route-reflection/89173/23
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/mikrotik-ros7-or-earlier-bgp-routing-protocol/107657/3
Some users have thousand routers and several hundred of thousand networks