[110162] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Sat Dec 27 13:52:21 2008
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:52:03 -0500
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812271939040.17215@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>> 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
