[184850] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IGP choice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pablo Lucena)
Thu Oct 22 18:19:12 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7AiUtqaL3wJZLytoPgxa9DMBy0bAMxK0P8GpyUPy-JD=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pablo Lucena <plucena@coopergeneral.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:17:40 -0400
To: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
It comes down to personal preference now days in my opinion. Both ISIS and
OSPFv3 allow you to run multi-af using the same protocol. Both of them dont
run full SPF when a stub network is added/removed (unlike OSPFv2). How
about vendor support? Perhaps ISIS has the upper hand here since its been
around for so long, as compared to multi-af OSPFv3.
If I had to build a network from scratch that need to support v4/v6, I
would go with ISIS...but thats just personal preference. Some DC gear
doens't support ISIS, so I guess it depends what the network is going to
support.
BGP as an IGP is also an interesting option =).
*Pablo Lucena*
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 22 October 2015 at 22:57, <sthaug@nethelp.no> wrote:
>
> > - Needing OSPFv3 for IPv6 when you're alredy running OSPFv2 for IPv4
> > is less than optimal. I believe nowadays several vendors support
> > OSPFv3 for both IPv4 and IPv6 - but this is not universal.
> >
>
> Our configuration is MPLS VPNv6 for IPv6. Therefore we have no native IPv6
> in the backbone and no need for OSPFv3.
>
> The IPv4 internet is MPLS VPNv4 so there should be no easy way to attack
> our OSPFv2 instance from outside. The attacker is simply not in the same
> VRF as the routing protocol.
>
> Is this such an uncommon configuration? I am asking because nobody
> mentioned this in the thread.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
