On Tuesday 06 January 2009 01:43:25 am Justin Shore wrote:
> I never could get
> IS-IS to work with multiple areas. The 7600s made a
> smelly mess on the CO floor every time I tried. In the
> end I went with a L2-only IS-IS network.
How so?
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is
Thanks all for sharing information!
regards
Devang Patel
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Justin Shore wrote:
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> I would hope you have a backbone well enough secured that you don't need
>> to rely on this, but it does make me a bit more relaxed and makes me
>> wish we we
Kevin Oberman wrote:
I would hope you have a backbone well enough secured that you don't need
to rely on this, but it does make me a bit more relaxed and makes me
wish we were using ISIS for IPv4, as well. The time and disruption
involved in converting is something that will keep us running OSPF
>For IS-IS, highly recommend MT to avoid any nasties while
>turning up v6 in a dual-stack environment.
Also when doing MT on cisco, configure "no-adjacency-check" under the v6
address-family during the migrate
else you will bounce your sessions.
Cisco of course warn you against doing this but
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 03:14:13 am Roque Gagliano
wrote:
> at least in my case, I did turned ISISv6 in one WAN
> interface where the router on the other side (a Cisco)
> did not have the "ipv6 unicast routing" general command
> on and the isis adjacency went down completely. So, yes
> that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Dec 28, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
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 topologie
There is no fundamental difference between ISIS and OSPF; it's all in
details and style. You might want to look at:
http://www.nada.kth.se/kurser/kth/2D1490/06/hemuppgifter/bhatia-manral-diff-isis-ospf-01.txt.html
Glen.
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:17 AM, devang patel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I do have
>>> In practice, we realized that enabling IS-ISv6 on interfaces
>>> already running IS-ISv4 was problematic without MT pre-
>>> configured.
>>> Those links surely lost IS-IS adjacency which threatened stability
>>> of the network.
>> Yup, that is the rub: if rolling out your v6 routing impacts you
In practice, we realized that enabling IS-ISv6 on interfaces
already running IS-ISv4 was problematic without MT pre-
configured.
Those links surely lost IS-IS adjacency which threatened stability
of the network.
Yup, that is the rub: if rolling out your v6 routing impacts your v4
routing you are
>> 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 o
>>> ... not to mention that fact that IS-IS is, IMHO, a much nicer IGP to
work with.
>>
>> WRT that last sentence, that is an almost religious debate I was trying
to
>> avoid starting ... :)
>>
>Well IMHO it's a very important point to consider. This is a great chance
to switch your IGP, if you've
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-pro
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:23:25 -0500
> From: "Steven M. Bellovin"
>
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:37:41 -0800
> "Kevin Oberman" wrote:
>
> > The main reason I prefer ISIS is that it uses CLNS packets for
> > communications and we don't route CLNS. (I don't think ANYONE is
> > routing CLNS today.)
TJ wrote:
... not to mention that fact that IS-IS is, IMHO, a much nicer IGP to work
with.
WRT that last sentence, that is an almost religious debate I was trying to
avoid starting ... :)
Well IMHO it's a very important point to consider. This is a great
chance to switch your IGP, if y
Steven M. Bellovin writes:
>Unless, of course, someone one hop away -- a peer? a customer? an
>upstream or downstream? someone on the same LAN at certain exchange
>points? -- sends you a CLNP packet at link level...
True enough, and mistakenly enabling ISIS on external ports has been
known to ha
TJ wrote:
>> ... not to mention that fact that IS-IS is, IMHO, a much nicer IGP to
>> work
> with.
>
> WRT that last sentence, that is an almost religious debate I was trying to
> avoid starting ... :)
>
I will offer a mantra that has helped me, over the years, about the indeed
religious wars that
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, devang patel wrote:
Thanks for pointing out other good part of having CLNS as a transport
for ISIS as a security point!
It's also a potential hassle, where you can have IS-IS up and running, but
have IP completely hosed. With OSPF this is harder as it actually runs
over
> ... not to mention that fact that IS-IS is, IMHO, a much nicer IGP to work
with.
WRT that last sentence, that is an almost religious debate I was trying to
avoid starting ... :)
/TJ
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:37:41 -0800
"Kevin Oberman" wrote:
> The main reason I prefer ISIS is that it uses CLNS packets for
> communications and we don't route CLNS. (I don't think ANYONE is
> routing CLNS today.) That makes it pretty secure.
Unless, of course, someone one hop away -- a peer? a
TJ wrote:
I do have some confusion about which one is better for IPv6 in Service
Provider networks as far as IP routing and MPLS application is concern!
General rule of thumb - use whichever you / your operation is most familiar
with.
Using IS-IS today, use it for IPv6.
Using O
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?
Personally, if my v4 and v6 topologies are not different, I'd
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, 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?
Personally, if my
---
> From: Randy Bush
> To: Mark Tinka
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
> Sent: Dec 27, 2008 9:27 AM
>
> > For IS-IS, highly recommend MT to avoid any nasties while
> > turning up v6 in a dual-stack environment.
>
> as one who has been bur
se for our NOC staff @ 2am over a
holiday weekend when some does decide to break.
-jim
--Original Message--
From: Randy Bush
To: Mark Tinka
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
Sent: Dec 27, 2008 9:27 AM
> For IS-IS, highly recommend MT to avoid any nasties while
&g
>>> Personally, I like the fact that IPv4 and IPv6 control plane are
>>> different, thus I'd go for OSPv3.
>>
>> I totally agree on the discrete/segregated control planes, although note
>> that - for those who want it - OSPFv3 will "soon" be able to do IPv4
route
>> exchange as well ...
>
>Only if
On Saturday 27 December 2008 09:08:50 pm Martin List-
Petersen wrote:
> Only if the vendors pick up on those changes.
Juniper support this since JunOS 9.2 (draft-ietf-ospf-af-
alt-06.txt).
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
For IS-IS, highly recommend MT to avoid any nasties while
turning up v6 in a dual-stack environment.
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 re
to do IPv4 route
> exchange as well ...
Only if the vendors pick up on those changes.
Kind regards,
Martin List-Petersen
>
>
> /TJ
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:23 A
/TJ
>-Original Message-
>From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
>Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:23 AM
>To: devang patel
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
>
>On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, devang patel wrote:
>
>> I do have some c
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, devang patel wrote:
I do have some confusion about which one is better for IPv6 in Service
Provider networks as far as IP routing and MPLS application is concern!
Both work and have advantages and disadvantages.
Personally, I like the fact that IPv4 and IPv6 control plane
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
Kevin,
Thanks for pointing out other good part of having CLNS as a transport for
ISIS as a security point!
regards
Devang Patel
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:47:21 -0700
> > From: "devang patel"
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I do have some confu
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:47:21 -0700
> From: "devang patel"
>
> Hello,
>
> I do have some confusion about which one is better for IPv6 in Service
> Provider networks as far as IP routing and MPLS application is concern!
>
> 1. Which protocol should i use to support the IPv6 in network: ISIS
>I do have some confusion about which one is better for IPv6 in Service
>Provider networks as far as IP routing and MPLS application is concern!
General rule of thumb - use whichever you / your operation is most familiar
with.
Using IS-IS today, use it for IPv6.
Using OSPFv2 toda
Hello,
I do have some confusion about which one is better for IPv6 in Service
Provider networks as far as IP routing and MPLS application is concern!
1. Which protocol should i use to support the IPv6 in network: ISIS or
OSPFv3?
As ISIS has multi-topology feature that can give us capability t
35 matches
Mail list logo
