Looking for information on IGP choice in dual-stack networks
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Fri Jun 5 07:55:18 CEST 2015
We run a couple hundred routers in our network, all dual-stacked.
Primarily, we use IS-IS as our IGP, supporting both IPv4 and IPv6
However, due to poor IS-IS support in Quagga, we run OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
between servers that offer Anycast-based services (DNS, NTP, TACACS+,
e.t.c.) and our service routers that route for them. We then
redistribute (restrictively) from OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 into IS-IS to get
those routes into the backbone.
Quagga had a few issues back in March with an update that broke OSPFv3.
There was an interim hack in March, and a full fix in April for that
issue. So one wants to be on quagga-0.99.24.1_1 or later.
All works well.
IPv4 traffic is MPLS-switched, while IPv6 traffic is carried natively in
the core. We've started deploying router code that supports LDPv6, but
that's another story.
On 4/Jun/15 17:02, Philip Matthews wrote:
> We are the co-authors of an Internet-Draft of some design choices
> people need to make when designing IPv6 and dual-stack networks
> We are looking for information on the IGP combinations people are
> running in their dual-stack networks. We are gathering this
> information so we can document in our draft which IGP choices are
> known to work well (i.e., people actually run this combination in
> production networks without issues). The draft will not name names,
> but just discuss things in aggregate: for example, "there are 3 large
> and 2 small production networks that run OSPF for IPv4 and IS-IS for
> IPv6, thus that combination is judged to work well".
> If you have a production dual-stack network, then we would like to
> know which IGP you use to route IPv4 and which you use to route IPv6.
> We would also like to know roughly how many routers are running this
> combination. Feel free to share any successes or concerns with the
> combination as well.
> We are looking particularly at combinations of the following IGPs:
> IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, EIGRP.
> If you run something else (RIP?) then we would also like to hear about
> this, though we will likely document these differently. [We suspect
> you run RIP/RIPng only at the edge for special situations, but feel
> free to correct us].
> And if you have one of those modern networks that carries dual-stack
> customer traffic in a L3VPN or similar and thus don’t need a
> dual-stacked core, then please email us and brag ...
> Philip Matthews
> Victor Kuarsingh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ipv6-ops