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 address families.
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. Mark. On 4/Jun/15 17:02, Philip Matthews wrote: > Folks: > > We are the co-authors of an Internet-Draft of some design choices > people need to make when designing IPv6 and dual-stack networks > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices). > > 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 >
