<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 13 Nov 2018, at 6:34 pm, Aled Morris via NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" class="">nanog@nanog.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 05:54, Brandon Martin <<a href="mailto:lists.nanog@monmotha.net" class="">lists.nanog@monmotha.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I was of the impression that there was a draft or similar for <br class="">
single-topology (IPv4+IPv6) OSPF. Did anything ever come of that?<br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Juniper support IPv4 families ("realms") in OSPFv3.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Available on IOS too.</div><div><br class=""></div>Problem for an ISP (OSPFv3 with AFs): if v6 breaks, v4 breaks too since OSPFv3 runs over v6 (even when carrying v4 AF)? Better with separate OSPFv2 and v3 instances.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>—</div><div>Tashi</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>