"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:

> CLNP wasn't inherently awful but it wasn't that great and now it is dead.

There is an enormous amount of OSI being spoken in the
field now, mostly in large ADM-based (yes, "D")
transmissions networks.

Many transmissions vendors' management and provisioning
systems are based on CMIP and the like, and use CLNP
underneath.  In fact, this helped drive alot of Henk
Smit's IS-IS & OSI routing work prior to his departure from Cisco.

I note that there is actual inter-provider dynamic routing
of native OSI in existence in this world; the iso-igrp
commands you can look up on Cisco's CCO are not there just
for "show".

And, frankly, CLNP and the routing protocols that came out
of CLNP routing (eventually) are far from "aren't that great";
[EI]S-IS is in heavy use in the Internet, and a number of
BGP features are heavily influenced by IDRP (and
vice-versa).

If you have to pick on the OSI/RM, pick on the ISORMites
themselves, or on all the layers ABOVE network, and maybe
the CONS (and certainly the IONL). There's more than
enough disgusting stuff there to flame without having to
invent reasons to dislike CLNP et al.

        Sean.