Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Comment on draft-ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt

From: Jeff Parker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:33:48 -0400

> I believe that the worst metric for an internal reachability would
> not be preferred over a better metric in an external reachability
> if that external reachability metric was of internal type (?)  I'm
> basing that on my reading of the NOTE on page 29 of rfc1195,
> where it says, if I'm interpreting it correctly :-), that
> internal routes from Internal Reachability (presumably with internal
> metric type since external metric type is illegal there) and external
> routes from External Reachability with metric type internal,
> are treated identically for the purpose of the order of preference
> of routes, and the Dijkstra calc.
> 
> The terminology of all this can get quite confusing, with
> the terms external and internal applying to both reachability 
> as well as the metric type. Looking back, I wish they
> could have used a different term for the metric type :-)

David -
	Have you had a chance to look over RFC 2966?
This is probably the clearest discussion of the various 
combinations of infernal and extortion around.  

	http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2966.txt

- jeff parker