[148013] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Misconceptions, was: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Li)
Thu Dec 29 15:18:41 2011
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <D51498F0B6E1EF408AC4D63440BFD6F8CB3518EE78@skbramsx02.emea.att.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:17:35 -0800
To: "Vitkovsky, Adam" <avitkovsky@emea.att.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 29, 2011, at 2:27 AM, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
>> ... host systems should participate in IGP
>=20
>> We tried that.
>=20
>> It didn't scale well.
>=20
>> The Internet today is very different than the Internet in 1981.
>=20
> -did you? I thought CLNS with plethora of ip addresses compared to =
ipv4 was buried before it could be widely deployed, I was not around =
back than but would like to know why ES-IS did not scale well when =
integrated IS-IS is still used primarily for great scalability=20
???
CLNS carried NSAPs, not IP addresses. =20
ES-IS was the protocol between hosts and routers, very much akin to ARP. =
IS-IS was the IGP used for CLNS. Yes, it's the same one that we use =
today for IP. Even in the ISO model, hosts did not participate in =
IS-IS.
There was no particular scalability problem with ES-IS, other than the =
mcast burden that it imposed on the link layer. This is not radically =
different than the burden that ARP broadcasts require. Limit your =
broadcast domains.
Tony
