[ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Sun Jul 24 10:40:18 CEST 2011
On 7/23/11 9:37 AM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote: > IS-IS MT is highly desirable in most circumstances anyway, but we > haven't considered that a good-enough reason to make it MANDATORY. > > However, if you run MPLS TE without MT, you get black hole routing > the moment the first autoroute MPLS TE tunnel is established; thus > we've made IS-IS MT MANDATORY for networks running MPLS TE. > > Details here: > http://blog.ioshints.info/2010/03/is-ismpls-tenative-ipv6fail.html > > However, I'm perfectly happy if the WG decides to make IS-IS MT > mandatory in all cases (would make sense anyway). Currently, this is mandatory only "If MPLS Traffic Engineering is used in combination with IS-IS routing protocol" What percentage of equipment we exclude as routers if we make this unconditionally mandatory? I know for at least Mikrotik routers are excluded, as they do not support IS-IS at all (and they are quite used in small/medium companies environment). Opinions? Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]