Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards

To: Stephen Wolff <steve at cise.nsf.gov>
Subject: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
From: jeff at nsipo.arc.nasa.gov
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 19:44:05 -0800
Cc: stev at vax.ftp.com, gmalkin at MONK.PROTEON.COM, hedrick at ARAMIS.RUTGERS.EDU, ietf at VENERA.ISI.EDU, louie at sayshell.umd.edu, medin at nsipo.nasa.gov, pgross at NRI.RESTON.VA.US
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 13 Feb 90 16:09:53 -0500. <9002132109.AA13939@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
Posted-date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 19:44:05 -0800

>  We **have** some IS-IS experience.  We'll look at dual IS-IS, too.  Sure, we
>  could run separate protocols on the Backbone; but as neither choice foreclos
es
>  options for anybody else, what's the flap?  -s

It's just that some would want to wait until IS-IS with IP support is
implemented before the decision on a standard IGP is made. The problem
is how long should we wait? However, there do seem be a lot of good
reasons to run two distinct routing protocols.

Jeffrey Burgan

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

Prev by Date: Re: Poll of Internet User Population
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.