It comes down to personal preference now days in my opinion. Both ISIS and OSPFv3 allow you to run multi-af using the same protocol. Both of them dont run full SPF when a stub network is added/removed (unlike OSPFv2). How about vendor support? Perhaps ISIS has the upper hand here since its been around for so long, as compared to multi-af OSPFv3.
If I had to build a network from scratch that need to support v4/v6, I would go with ISIS...but thats just personal preference. Some DC gear doens't support ISIS, so I guess it depends what the network is going to support. BGP as an IGP is also an interesting option =). *Pablo Lucena* On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 October 2015 at 22:57, <sth...@nethelp.no> wrote: > > > - Needing OSPFv3 for IPv6 when you're alredy running OSPFv2 for IPv4 > > is less than optimal. I believe nowadays several vendors support > > OSPFv3 for both IPv4 and IPv6 - but this is not universal. > > > > Our configuration is MPLS VPNv6 for IPv6. Therefore we have no native IPv6 > in the backbone and no need for OSPFv3. > > The IPv4 internet is MPLS VPNv4 so there should be no easy way to attack > our OSPFv2 instance from outside. The attacker is simply not in the same > VRF as the routing protocol. > > Is this such an uncommon configuration? I am asking because nobody > mentioned this in the thread. > > Regards, > > Baldur >
