[110213] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Sun Dec 28 15:42:07 2008
From: "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <49578BCF.3060805@psg.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:41:46 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>>> 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.
>> Yup, that is the rub: if rolling out your v6 routing impacts your v4
>> routing you are not "winning".
>
>this is not very deep.
Is it untrue?
>
>mark did point out how to avoid it, pointing out why mt was very useful
>as opposed to just another bell and whistle. during a transition, in
>fact, topologies are not congruent due to inability to have a flag
>millisecond, a very very useful observation.
Indeed, and not creating the problem is good thing. I don't think we are
disagreeing on anything here ...
Although I don't believe anyone has mentioned "multi-topology" +
"transition" just yet, the goal being that when you go from ST to MT
(assuming you aren't already there, that is) you don't impact ongoing
operations / neighborships.
/TJ
