ISO vs. IETF

When networks became large enough to outgrow distance vector routing protocols such as RIPv2, and the networking community wanted something non-proprietary to fill the role, Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) was created by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) had historically put forth such Internet/networking standards. Later, Open Shortest Path First, an internal link-state routing protocol very similar to IS-IS, was created by the IETF. As explained in OSPF and IS-IS: Choosing an IGP for Large-Scale Networks by Jeff Doyle, one main reason for OSPF’s creation seemed to be resentment at having their responsibilities taken over by the ISO:

One camp looked at IS-IS and decided that it made little sense to develop a new link state protocol when one was already at hand. Why not just extend IS-IS to support TCP/IP? The other camp did not want a protocol that was controlled by an outside body, particularly one as rigidly bureaucratic as the ISO. The IETF approach was proven and familiar, so why not develop an open, nonproprietary version of the ARPANET’s SPF—OSPF—to better coexist with the open TCP/IP? A visceral resentment of the ISO’s arrogance in dismissing TCP/IP also fed the second camp; IS-IS was unacceptable simply because it was an ISO protocol.

Because of their egos, I now have considerably more work to do in my studying for the BSCI exam.

Sweet.