The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Dec> msg00378



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

[Isis-wg] Question on DCC Architecture

  • From: Tony Przygienda <prz@net4u.ch>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:20:22 +0100 (MET)
  • 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

> 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