Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Hello PDU sequence numbers

From: Jeff Parker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:30:45 -0400

> If I follow the below logic correctly, can I say that MIB is
> not needed, since telnet has offered the exact information ?-(
> 
> Cheers.

Naiming -

	My point was simply that there is a standard way to get 
the raw counts today.  If there was an IETF standard for the 
IS-IS CLI, telnet would provide an alternative.

- jeff parker

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Dave Katz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 20:15:26 -0700 (PDT)

Hm, I was always against MTU-sided IIHs, at least as far back as I can
remember, which at my advanced age isn't as long as the IETF archives,
I'm afraid.  My revisionist claim is that IIH padding is solely to
ensure that max-sized LSPs can transit the link successfully.  It makes
a lousy MTU negotiation tool, and the detection of the drops of large
frames is probably only useful on point-to-point links, where you don't
pad after the initial exchange anyhow...

--Dave

   X-JNPR-Received-From: outside
   From: Henk Smit <[email-masked]>
   Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 05:09:10 +0200 (CEST)
   Cc: [email-masked]
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2002 03:08:51.0936 (UTC) FILETIME=[151C3600:01C24409]
   X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.15 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang)

   Dave wrote:

   > This would seem to reduce the proposal to a form of link quality detection,
   > which really ought not be part of ISIS.

     Cool ! You must have changed your view on the issue of IGP and
    link quality detection. ;-)

     Can we now get rid of that fugly proposal for IS-IS and jumbo frames
    over GigE ? Or is it an RFC already ? I always have understood that
    the reason for that draft was that UUnet and Juniper thought IIHs
    *had* to be mtu-sized, or else the quality of the ethernet link was
    not guaranteed ? That draft added a lot of extra complexity, and all
    you get back is a little extra "link quality detection".

     So if we don't need "link quality detection" in our IGPs, then I assume
    we don't need jumbo ethernet frames for IS-IS either .....

     :p

	Henk.