North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: IPv6: IS-IS or OSPFv3
>>> 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 not "winning". > >this is not very deep. Is it untrue? > >mark did point out how to avoid it, pointing out why mt was very useful >as opposed to just another bell and whistle. during a transition, in >fact, topologies are not congruent due to inability to have a flag >millisecond, a very very useful observation. Indeed, and not creating the problem is good thing. I don't think we are disagreeing on anything here ... Although I don't believe anyone has mentioned "multi-topology" + "transition" just yet, the goal being that when you go from ST to MT (assuming you aren't already there, that is) you don't impact ongoing operations / neighborships. /TJ
|