IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3

Mark Tinka mtinka at globaltransit.net
Sun Dec 28 05:00:28 UTC 2008

On Saturday 27 December 2008 09:27:05 pm Randy Bush wrote:

> as one who has been burned when topologies are not
> congruent, i gotta ask.  if i do not anticipate v4 and v6
> having different topologies, and all my devices are
> dual-capable, would you still recommend mt for other than
> future-proofing?

In practice, we realized that enabling IS-ISv6 on interfaces 
already running IS-ISv4 was problematic without MT pre-

Those links surely lost IS-IS adjacency which threatened 
stability of the network.

Things could probably have been easier if all routers 
accepted all transition commands at the same time (or if all 
routers were pre-configured and powered on at the same 
time), but that's not possible. 

MT allowed us to bring up individual v6 links on the same 
and different routers, at different times, without bringing 
down the v4 network, considering that several routers had as 
many as 4 - 6 links into the core.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20081228/314dea06/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list