nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka () globaltransit net>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:00:28 +0800
On Saturday 27 December 2008 09:27:05 pm Randy Bush wrote:
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?
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. Things could probably have been easier if all routers accepted all transition commands at the same time (or if all routers were pre-configured and powered on at the same time), but that's not possible. MT allowed us to bring up individual v6 links on the same and different routers, at different times, without bringing down the v4 network, considering that several routers had as many as 4 - 6 links into the core. Cheers, Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3, (continued)
- 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 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)