[110161] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Sat Dec 27 13:44:34 2008
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:42:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <49562D29.8030003@psg.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, 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?
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".
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
