IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3

[mtinka at globaltransit.net (Mark Tinka)]

On Saturday 27 December 2008 12:56:39 pm devang patel wrote:

> Thanks for pointing out other good part of having CLNS as
> a transport for ISIS as a security point!

We've been happy with IS-IS, having migrated from OSPF 
ealrier on in the year. We like it because it lets us 
"stretch" the network without worrying about connectivity to 
the "backbone" area.

However, as most others have said, go with what you're 
comfortable with. The knobs and switches really aren't that 
different nowadays, just a few fundamentals that you can 
easily use to decide which makes (more) sense to you.

For v6, using a single routing protocol for both address 
families is not so bad (although running both OSPFv2 and 
OSPFv3 really isn't a big deal, or bad thing, having done it 
at my previous employment and so on). 

For IS-IS, highly recommend MT to avoid any nasties while 
turning up v6 in a dual-stack environment.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- 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/20081227/34606c1d/attachment.bin>