The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Dec> msg00360



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[Isis-wg] Question on DCC Architecture

  • From: Jeff Learman <jlearman@cisco.com>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:04:42 -0500
  • Cc: rbush@bainbridge.verio.net, truskows@cisco.com, prz@net4u.ch, Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com, james.d.carlson@east.sun.com, azinin@cisco.com, tli@procket.com, echang@pocketmail.com, isis-wg@spider.juniper.net, skatukam@cisco.com, mpls@UU.NET


I don't think this thread (IP on SONET DCC) has anything to do with
IS-IS over IP.  Please pick a new topic if you have something
to say about that.

Thanks,
Jeff


At 10:20 PM 12/19/2000 +0100, Tony Przygienda wrote:
>> Not true - there are BIG security advantages to not having is-is over ip. 
>> It rules
>> out a huge class of spoofing attacks to which OSPF is vulnerable. 
>
>last I checked nobody saw them so the whole thing is more a mental
>construct than reality. And even if, running proper security in your 
>routing protocol is a pretty good answer to that ...
>
>> Further,
>> there are no evident advantages to having is-is over ip, at least not that I
>> have ever heard of.
>
>there are some, they are just not that important at the moment and that's
>why the work is dormant. One day we may run out of patience defining IS-IS
>encaps for every new link-layer technology that comes our way or really 
>want to solve the MTU problem or maybe simply run out of smallest MTU times
>255 LSPs bytes space in the protocol and then it may become a very handy tool
>
>	thanks 
>
>	-- tony
>
>_______________________________________________
>Isis-wg mailing list  -  Isis-wg@external.juniper.net
>http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg