Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards

To: Stephen Wolff <steve at cise.nsf.gov>
Subject: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
From: "Milo S. Medin" (NASA ARC NSI Project Office) <medin at nsipo.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 12:07:01 -0800
Cc: gmalkin at MONK.PROTEON.COM, pgross at NRI.RESTON.VA.US, hedrick at ARAMIS.RUTGERS.EDU, ietf at VENERA.ISI.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 13 Feb 90 11:10:32 -0500. <9002131610.AA13521@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
Posted-date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 12:07:01 -0800

Steve, being multi-protocol doesn't imply dual IS-IS.  NSN carries both
IP and DECNET now without having a single routing protocol doing
the work.  We find this approach to work well.  I'm working on a fairly
long message that describes why I think dual IS-IS is in general a bad
idea, though that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good fit for the NSFNET
backbone.  There are lots of ways of skinning the multi-protocol cat.

You could run one IS-IS for IP and another IS-IS for 8473.  This avoids
any coupling between the 2 protocols metrics, areas, etc...

						Thanks,
						   Milo

References:
- Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
  - From: Stephen Wolff

Prev by Date: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
Next by Date: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
Previous by thread: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
Next by thread: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.