[110158] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (deleskie@gmail.com)
Sat Dec 27 11:31:17 2008
To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>,"Mark Tinka" <mtinka@globaltransit.net>
From: deleskie@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:29:39 +0000
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: deleskie@gmail.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Having worked for seveal SP's 'tier 1' and otherwise along with a couple of router vendors IMO MT is one of those thing people ask for just in case. Sure we _could_ always find a use for it, but we don't always look at the potential diffrent IGP topologies are going to cause for our NOC staff @ 2am over a holiday weekend when some does decide to break.
-jim
------Original Message------
From: Randy Bush
To: Mark Tinka
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
Sent: Dec 27, 2008 9:27 AM
> For IS-IS, highly recommend MT to avoid any nasties while
> turning up v6 in a dual-stack environment.
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?
randy
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
