nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:52:03 -0500
as one who has been burned when topologies are not congruent, i gotta ask. if i do not anticipate v4 and v6 having different topologies, and all my devices are dual-capable, would you still recommend mt for other than future-proofing?Personally, if my v4 and v6 topologies are not different, I'd run ISIS and not run MT. MT for me is to make v4 and v6 have different control planes (even though it's using the same protocol), thus I see little difference in running OSPFv3+ISIS, or running ISIS-MT for v4+v6. I argue that it's better to have different control planes for v4 and v6 and make it obvious (OSPv3 / ISIS), than to use ISIS-MT and "obfuscate".
the real control plane is bgp. is-is is for recursive resolution to find bgp's next hop interface, fertig. so the simpler the better. i am annoyed enough that bgp4 and bgp6 peerings and configs are overly divergent. running a different igp for 6 and 4 would not make me happy.
randy
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3, (continued)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Adam Armstrong (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Howard C. Berkowitz (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Adam Armstrong (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 28)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Adam Armstrong (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 devang patel (Dec 26)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mark Tinka (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Randy Bush (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Randy Bush (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Mark Tinka (Dec 27)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 28)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Randy Bush (Dec 28)
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 TJ (Dec 28)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Joe Malcolm (Dec 27)
- Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3 Kevin Oberman (Dec 27)