Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards

To: Stephen Wolff <steve at cise.nsf.gov>
Subject: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie at sayshell.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 15:20:42 EST
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 15:20:42 EST

Having a dual (or more!) protocol network doesn't demand having a dual
IS-IS routing protocol.  There are existance proofs for dual protocol
routes, with distinct routing protocols for each router.  Just off the
top of my head, Proteon which routes IP (using RIP), DECNET (using
some DEC compatible Phase IV routing protocol), as well as XNS (using
its own routing protocol).


> The NSFNET Backbone needs a dual IS-IS because we are committed to being a
> dual protocol network.  Our demo at Interop '89 was a signal.  -s


Louis A. Mamakos
University of Maryland, College Park

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.