Which of the following is a true statement regarding IS-IS compared to OSPF?

Which of the following is a true statement regarding IS-IS compared to OSPF?

• A. IS-IS supports fewer network types.
• B. IS-IS supports more area types.
• C. IS-IS has better scalability.
• D. IS-IS supports more protocol packet types.

Answer: (C)

The statement that IS-IS has better scalability compared to OSPF is accurate because IS-IS is designed to support a larger number of routers and networks without a significant increase in complexity. This scalability stems from its hierarchical design, which allows for more straightforward handling of a vast amount of routing information. IS-IS operates effectively in large networks by dividing the routing domain into areas while maintaining a flat routing protocol core. This capability enables the protocol to support large service provider networks that require the handling of numerous routes and destinations. Additionally, IS-IS does not require the same complexity of configurations that OSPF does, which can include designing different area types and configurations that often lead to increased overhead. In contrast, other options may highlight aspects where IS-IS has limitations or differences but do not necessarily impact its scalability. For instance, the type of network and area support does not directly influence the ability to manage larger routing tables or greater route calculations effectively.

The statement that IS-IS has better scalability compared to OSPF is accurate because IS-IS is designed to support a larger number of routers and networks without a significant increase in complexity. This scalability stems from its hierarchical design, which allows for more straightforward handling of a vast amount of routing information.

IS-IS operates effectively in large networks by dividing the routing domain into areas while maintaining a flat routing protocol core. This capability enables the protocol to support large service provider networks that require the handling of numerous routes and destinations. Additionally, IS-IS does not require the same complexity of configurations that OSPF does, which can include designing different area types and configurations that often lead to increased overhead.

In contrast, other options may highlight aspects where IS-IS has limitations or differences but do not necessarily impact its scalability. For instance, the type of network and area support does not directly influence the ability to manage larger routing tables or greater route calculations effectively.