Benjamin Cline <[email protected]> writes:
> Your assumption was incorrect. The point I was trying to make is that
> Mr. Anderson seems to be ascribing IS-IS the magical ability to make a
> non-IPv6 capable of routing IPv6 packets and I simply do not see how
> this is possible. And should I develop some insane urge to tunnel IPv6
> through an ISO network, I certainly wouldn't use IS-IS as the transport
> mechanism (which would probably take some hacking, but I expect could be
> made to work after a fashion).
I'd suggest reading Radia Perlman if you want the fairly high
level stuff that Dean's, um, discussing to be covered a bit more
clearly.
He's talking about using IS-IS as a unified, multi-protocol IGP.
This is being done in production networks, today.
He does seem to be claiming that you can use IS-IS to forward IPv6
without enabling IPv6 on the router, but that would indeed be magic,
and isn't how it works.
Dean clearly doesn't like the "ships in the night" style of
routing protocols that the IETF produced. Perlman can probably
discuss the tradeoffs between "ships in the night" and integrated
routing a little bit more clearly, should you care about that layer of
the debate.
If you're being more pragmatic, IPv6s routing options are pretty
much the same as IPv4. There's a RIP, there's an OSPF, there's ISIS
if you don't like a routing protocol per network protocol. BGP can be
handled in a more integrated fashion, although some prefer an enforced
"ships in the night" of only talking about IPv6 over IPv6.
_______________________________________________
bblisa mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
