[195938] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson)
Sat Sep 23 03:22:49 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:14:25 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <8290D082-E5B7-478F-8026-29342E3E6E7A@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--rmUrFcWP4LYae1gV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp Date: Wed, Sep 20, 2017=
at 12:04:45PM -0300 Quoting Owen DeLong (owen@delong.com):
> > iBGP is scalable, you can introduce router reflectors to avoid full mesh
> > peering between PE routers =E2=80=93 and the sky if your limit!
>=20
> I think in general most serious networks consider this a question of OSPF
> vs. ISIS for IGP and BGP is the only choice for EGP.
>=20
> I find it interesting that you don=E2=80=99t even mention ISIS in your di=
scussion.
>=20
> I don=E2=80=99t know of any substantial networks running EIGRP these days=
=2E I=E2=80=99m not
> saying they don=E2=80=99t exist, but they are certainly rare exceptions.
The fact that we'll be running dual-stack for perhaps another decade and
that there are no 36-hour days available makes the choice very simple;
IS-IS is my preferred choice. One routing instance less.=20
But, I'd rather limit the IS-IS scope to "links and loopbacks" -- there
is no need to have link-state flooding for a customer network that will
always be originated from one specific access router. iBGP is much more
appropriate for that. As long as I'll have one working path up to that
router I can rely on BGP to tell me where the network is.
The key is the time domain. If the topology is likely to be changing
slowly (customer moves premises or commissions new connection), use
BGP to signal it. If the topology is potentially unstable, i.e. subject
to backhoes and similar, use IS-IS.
Oh, by the way; I concur with Owen: EIGRP is not done. I've stumbled
on it once the last decade, and it was a PABX network engineer who
insisted.
--=20
M=C3=A5ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE SA0XLR +46 705 989668
Am I in GRADUATE SCHOOL yet?
--rmUrFcWP4LYae1gV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=PWox
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--rmUrFcWP4LYae1gV--
