Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Problem for Support Frame Relay .

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:14:54 -0500

Alex Zinin wrote:

> Monday, January 17, 2000, 7:43:07 PM, Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > again, first a problem statement would be nice to make sure
> > we're all tackling the same problem.
>
> Well, I think Jorge's initial messages are quite
> clear on that---running IS-IS over NBMA media.
> ...and whichever issues related :)

again, it may be the partial mesh problem (the protocol needs to understand
the topology correctly) or the "running over dial-up links" problem.

> > 2nd, Alex, you're oversimpliofying here ;-)
>
> Tony, I'm not. I'm just correcting the statement
> that on-demand VCs cannot be used with IS-IS.

this part you don't, right. But after that you're saying it's easy and doesn't
need anything, that's at least slightly oversimplifying. You can run it that
way but you'll stop pretty soon after the montly bills come. If you don't
beleive me, try an ISDN link with OSPF active ;-)

> >   Just "running"
> > the protocol that way leads to extensive thrashing of up&downs
> > of the circuit
>
> Quoting myself:
>
> "...provided that the idle timer doesn't close
> the VC before the next Hello PDU is sent over it."

then de-facto you _never_ close the circuit wyhen the protocol is running
and if you're paying usage, that's expensive stuff, either charged per data
unit or per time unit (2nd is worse normally).  If that's the soluiton people
are happy with (but weren't in OSPF) then de facto, no work needs tio be
done in layer 3 and Alex's right.

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