nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGP choice
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:07:19 +0200
On 22 October 2015 at 22:57, <sthaug () nethelp no> wrote:
- Needing OSPFv3 for IPv6 when you're alredy running OSPFv2 for IPv4 is less than optimal. I believe nowadays several vendors support OSPFv3 for both IPv4 and IPv6 - but this is not universal.
Our configuration is MPLS VPNv6 for IPv6. Therefore we have no native IPv6 in the backbone and no need for OSPFv3. The IPv4 internet is MPLS VPNv4 so there should be no easy way to attack our OSPFv2 instance from outside. The attacker is simply not in the same VRF as the routing protocol. Is this such an uncommon configuration? I am asking because nobody mentioned this in the thread. Regards, Baldur
Current thread:
- Re: IGP choice, (continued)
- Re: IGP choice Pablo Lucena (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice marcel.duregards () yahoo fr (Oct 26)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- RE: IGP choice Damien Burke (Oct 22)
- RE: IGP choice Steve Mikulasik (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Randy via NANOG (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Dave Bell (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice sthaug (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Baldur Norddahl (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Pablo Lucena (Oct 22)
- RE: IGP choice Damien Burke (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice A . L . M . Buxey (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice thomas nanog (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Bill Blackford (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 22)
- Re: IGP choice Saku Ytti (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Saku Ytti (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 23)
- Re: IGP choice Mark Tinka (Oct 23)