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
