North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:47:21 -0700 > > From: "devang patel" <[email protected]> > > > > 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 to run > > IPv4 network separate from IPv6 right! and same thing with OSPF: OSPFv2 > will > > be used for IPv4 routing and OSPFv3 will be used for IPv6 routing! again > Its > > look like resource utilization for both the protocol will be same as > they > > are going to use separate database for storing the routing or topology > > information. ISIS still has advantage over OSPF as it does use the TLV > > structure which can help in expanding network to support the new feature! > > > > 2. MPLS is not distributing label for IPv6 protocol so again there will > not > > be any IGP best path calcuated for any MPLS related application for IPv6! > > > > 3. what if i have already running OSPFv2 for IPv4 in the network then > should > > i think for migrating to ISIS? > > if yes then what are the advantages that I can look at for migrating > my > > network to IS-IS? > > FWIW, we run OSPF for IPv4 and ISIS for IPv6. We started with ISIS for > v6 because we were routing IPv6 before OSPFv3 was available. > > 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. > > 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 > IPv4 for a long time, though. I remember the 'fun' of converting from > IGRP to OSPF about 13 years ago and I'd prefer to retire before a > repeat. > > The real issue is that you need to run something you understand and can > manage effectively. It that is OSPF, it will certainly do the job. If it > is ISIS, it will, too. The real differences are few and not significant for > most. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) > E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 >
|