[180858] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for information on IGP choices in dual-stack networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Thu Jun 11 03:06:55 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>,
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:02:29 +0200
In-Reply-To: <55778BE7.4010207@jvknet.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 10/Jun/15 02:59, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
>
>
> 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).
Also, router CPU's were much slower then than they are now.
The IGP's have gotten a little more complex also, but by-and-large, are
still the same if you don't do "fancy things". So there would be a
certain amount of increase in scale that an IGP domain would support,
perhaps, regardless of which IGP is chosen.
Mark.
