You know sometimes the bottom of answers are so deep. It is hard to
actually get to the bottom. Reading books from different authors I often
notice contradicting stories. This gets to be quite confusing.
Howard wrote:
>>I wouldn't say US government requirements drove IS-IS. In fact, I'd argue
>>to the contrary.
I am currently reading Sam Halabi's Second Edition BGP book. He notes that
"IS-IS was initially, often chosen over OSPF, because the U.S. Government
required support of ISO CLNP by networks in order for the networks to be
awarded federal contracts."
Howard wouldn't you consider a requrement for this IGP in order to be
awarded a Government contract, to be a driving factor?
Sam Halabi then goes on to note that "folklore suggests the driving factor
was that IS-IS implementations were much more stable than OSPF
implementations."
I wonder if over the years improvements to OSPF have caused it to become
more popular in newer networks? I am excited to learn more about IS-IS and
OSPF in the future. It is very cool to learn this information from someone
with such a wealth of experience! I did not realize the difficulties we ran
into with Europe.
>>>Brian
Go Alternet!
>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: IS-IS use??
>Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:59:01 -0500
>
>>"William Gragido" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>
>
>
>>IS-IS is most definetly still alive and kicking. The US military utilizes
>>it, and it works very well. OSPF is a different animal, and Rik, I would
>>disagree with your statement as to its scalability. IS-IS was designed to
>>provide complete non-vendor dependent integration at the request of the US
>>Government(ie Military), to accomadate its World Wide network.
>
>I wouldn't say US government requirements drove IS-IS. In fact, I'd
>argue to the contrary.
>
>The direct ancestor of IS-IS is DECnet Phase IV routing, principally
>designed by Radia Perlman. DEC contributed its work to ISO, and
>IS-IS was initially developed as a pure OSI routing protocol (i.e.,
>for CLNP). IS-IS became the native IGP for DECnet Phase V, which was
>OSI (protocol, not just model) at its lower layers. This was at a
>time when many European governments, and their PTT's that dominated
>international standards, were very anti-IP. I am _not_ making it up
>when I quote, from my experience in OSI standards committee, European
>PTT people saying they would not accept a protocol suite "designed by
>the bomb-crazed American military."
>
>In 1986-1988, the US government issued the Government OSI Profile
>(GOSIP), which mandated OSI protocols for future government use.
>Integrated IS-IS, in part, was intended as an interim protocol to use
>while people migrated from proprietary and IP protocols to OSI.
>
>Of course, market forces drove the world to the IP protocol suite. I
>hate to say IP won the war over OSI; it's more that the two
>intermarried. The good protocol things in OSI have wound up in IP,
>and the bad things are mostly forgotten.
>
>Integrated IS-IS was implemented in Alternet, Sprint, etc., partially
>because the CLNP vs. IP debate was still a very open issue at the
>time those networks were implemented.
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
