[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] not announcing IXP IPv6 peering lan prefixes in global BGP table possibly breaks PMTUD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Isacco Fontana
isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it
Sun Jul 24 16:18:20 CEST 2011
I agree. I think the use of MT-ISIS when we have ipv6 is always desirable not only when we have TE. Isacco Inviato da iPad Il giorno 23/lug/2011, alle ore 09:37, "Ivan Pepelnjak" <ip at ioshints.info> ha scritto: > 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). > > Cheers, > Ivan > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of >> Jan Zorz @ go6.si >> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:12 AM >> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2 >> >> On 7/22/11 3:57 PM, Isacco Fontana wrote: >>> Hi, >>> relating on following sentence: "If MPLS Traffic Engineering is used in >>> combination with IS-IS routing protocol, the equipment MUST support >>> "M-ISIS: Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to >>> Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)" [RFC 5120]" >>> >>> I think the Multitopology ISIS can be used also without TE ad said in >>> RFC 5120 with IPv6: "This document describes how to run, within a single >>> IS-IS domain, a set of independent IP topologies that we call >>> Multi-Topologies (MTs). This MT extension can be used for a variety of >>> purposes, such as an in-band management network "on top" of the original >>> IGP topology, maintaining separate IGP routing domains for isolated >>> multicast or IPv6 islands within the backbone, or forcing a subset of an >>> address space to follow a different topology. ".... >> >> thnx for comment. >> >> What would be suggested change in text? >> >> Let's see if Ivan "mpls-master" Pepelnjak agree on proposed change :) >> >> Cheers, Jan >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] not announcing IXP IPv6 peering lan prefixes in global BGP table possibly breaks PMTUD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]