[180690] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for information on IGP choices in dual-stack networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Victor Kuarsingh)
Tue Jun 9 21:01:24 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:59:19 -0400
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <4007870726252415245@unknownmsgid>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I/we (Philip and I) attempted to keep the question as generic as
possible, allowing folks to state the IGPs they use, in whichever
combination or in some cases (as we can see), more complex deployments.
I would agree with statements form Joel earlier with respect to cases
where early vendor support may have influenced some network zones
(inside a given AS) to support a different IGP (his case of OSPFv3 for
devices which lacked IS-IS support is one I did face a few years back as
well in the DC with respect to Load balancing and Firewall devices).
The merger one was a new one for me, but it seems to reflect some
peoples reality.
regards,
Victor K
On 2015-06-09 7:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 18:08, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
>>> Routers makes more sense to me than networks (IGP, so one network,
>>> right?)
>> so you are thinking of a network where half the routers run is-is one
>> quarter ospf/ospfv2 and one quarter ospf/ripv3. right.
> No, not at all. I thought Victor was asking "what IGP" and "how many
> routers use it in your network". I assumed he was interested in
> whether the size of the network influenced the IGP choice.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, because apparently I was the only one who
> read it that way.
>
>
> Joe
