Re: Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")

To: Zaw-Sing Su <zsu at nisc.sri.com>
Subject: Re: Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")
From: vcerf at NRI.Reston.VA.US
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 07:42:58 -0500
Cc: "Phillip G. Gross" <pgross at NRI.Reston.VA.US>, ietf at venera.isi.edu, vcerf at NRI.Reston.VA.US
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 14 Feb 90 14:57:39 -0800. <9002142257.AA11759@terra.nisc.sri.com>
Posted-date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 07:42:58 -0500

Zaw-Sing,

the reason for trying to agree on one standard IGP is to assure
that under all circumstances, any powerset of routers will be
able to interoperate using the standard IGP. Of course a subset
of routers in an actual deployment, might use something other than
the standard IGP within the confines of a given autonomous routing
domain.

Vint

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")
  - From: Zaw-Sing Su

References:
- Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")
  - From: Zaw-Sing Su

Prev by Date: Re: Poll of Internet User Population
Next by Date: re: Poll of Internet User Population
Previous by thread: Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")
Next by thread: Re: Why One Standard IGP? (was "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.

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