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: Mon, 19 Feb 90 05:04:08 -0500
Cc: vcerf at NRI.Reston.VA.US, "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 Thu, 15 Feb 90 12:11:39 -0800. <9002152011.AA12073@terra.nisc.sri.com>
Posted-date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 05:04:08 -0500

Zaw-Sing,

The trouble with two standards for routing is simply that two
vendors may choose different ones to implement and we leave
the user with the inability to operate a network containing
those two vendor's equipment, unless it happens that they both
implement a non-preferred routing protocol such as RIP.

Vint

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

Prev by Date: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
Next by Date: Re: What are we trying to measure?
Previous by thread: Re: 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.

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

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