Looking for information on IGP choices in dual-stack networks

Tue Jun 9 15:14:02 UTC 2015

Nanog Folks:

Philip Matthews and I are co-authors on an active draft within the IETF 
related to IPv6 routing design choices.  To ensure we are gathering 
sufficient data we are looking for an expanded set of input from 
operator forums as well (vs. just the v6ops IETF list).  The draft is 
found here -(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices).

We are looking for information on the IGP combinations people are 
running in their dual-stack networks. We are gathering this information 
so we can document in our draft which IGP choices are known to work well 
(i.e., people actually run this combination in production networks 
without issues). The draft will not name names, but just discuss things 
in aggregate: for example, "there are 3 large and 2 small production 
networks that run OSPF for IPv4 and IS-IS for IPv6, thus that 
combination is judged to work well".
If you have a production dual-stack network, then we would like to know 
which IGP you use to route IPv4 and which you use to route IPv6.  We 
would also like to know roughly how many routers are running this 
combination. Feel free to share any successes or concerns with the 
combination as well.
We are looking particularly at combinations of the following IGPs:  
IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, EIGRP.
If you run something else (RIP?) then we would also like to hear about 
this, though we will likely document these differently. [We suspect you 
run RIP/RIPng only at the edge for special situations, but feel free to 
correct us].

And if you have one of those modern networks that carries dual-stack 
customer traffic in a L3VPN or similar and thus don’t need a 
dual-stacked core, then please email us and brag ...

If you are on multiple lists at RIPE, NANOG or the IETF, we appologize 
for any redundant emails you may get (we are just attempting to reach 
the widest audience possible).

Philip Matthews
Victor Kuarsingh