Within NorMAN, we have IS-IS routing IPv4 and IPv6.
This does allow us to have one routing protocol.
However, as this is an integrated routing protocol, it appears that if
there is a mismatch in either the IPv4 or the IPv6 config on a link, the
is-is peering will not be established on that link, affecting both IPv4
and IPv6 on that link.
At Newcastle, we are running OSPF for IPv4, and will use OSPF for IPv6.
(We need to get DHCPv6 running before we roll out a production IPv6
service on campus)
Ian Alder
NorMAN Network Operation Centre
University of Newcastle
>-----Original Message-----
>From: IPv6 - Next Generation Internet Protocol
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Franklin
>Sent: 15 October 2007 14:11
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: IPv6 backbone routing protocol
>
>Hello,
>
>We are looking to ramp up our IPv6 deployment which will
>involve deploying
>a backbone routing protocol (what we've done so far has been
>done using
>static routes internally). We're using OSPF for the existing IPv4
>backbone.
>
>Can I take a heads-up on what people are using (RIPng, OSPFv3,
>etc.)? I
>think I read something about IS-IS being a good choice to
>consolidate IPv4
>and IPv6 routing; do I misremember that, or am I generally confused?
>
>Finally, any advice?
>
>Thanks,
>
> - Bob
>
>
>--
> Bob Franklin <[log in to unmask]> +44 1223 748479
> Network Division, University of Cambridge Computing Service
>
|