Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Concerns about ISIS in IP encapsulation

From: Paul Traina <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:02:33 -0800

Allow me to reiterate my support (and Dave's) from Oslo.  I really like
Henk's proposal (draft-hsmit-isis-ip-aal5mux-00.txt), and Dave has pointed
out that this is well within the expected behavior for OSI protocols.

With Henk's proposal as a tool for solving the MUX encaps issues of ATM and
similar encapsulations that are incapable of carrying a ptype, I do not see
any great need for IS-IS to be reimplemented to use IP as a transport layer.
Your IGPs may as well be multi-protocol.  The world is already a happy
place.

Paul

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:19:43 -0700

To chime is as "an operator", I agree.  I don't see any significant advantages 
with deploying it in my network, other than the job security that comes along 
introducing new complexities into a system.

Am I missing something?

-danny

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:19:44 -0700

Am I missing something?

-danny