RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3

["TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>]

> > > In practice, we realized that enabling IS-ISv6 on interfaces
> > > already running IS-ISv4 was problematic without MT pre-
> > > configured.
> > > Those links surely lost IS-IS adjacency which threatened stability
> > > of the network.
> > Yup, that is the rub: if rolling out your v6 routing impacts your v4
> > routing you are not "winning".
>
> this is not very deep.

Is it untrue?


> mark did point out how to avoid it, pointing out why mt was very useful
> as opposed to just another bell and whistle.  during a transition, in
> fact, topologies are not congruent due to inability to have a flag
> millisecond, a very very useful observation.

Indeed, and not creating the problem is good thing.  I don't think we are
disagreeing on anything here ... 

Although I don't believe anyone has mentioned "multi-topology" +
"transition" just yet, the goal being that when you go from ST to MT
(assuming you aren't already there, that is) you don't impact ongoing
operations / neighborships.


/TJ