On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > One MUST that the NIST IPv6 Profile introduced was mandating of OSPFv3 > as the routing protocol. Is this because RIPng is not beiong adopted in > practice? Small networks should do well with RIPng, I would think, > unless RIPng is never used in practice. And in principle, there could be > a case made for static routing tables in special cases. I'm not sure why > the routing protocol mandate for all Government nets.
IS-IS is currently probably more widely used for IPv6 routing than OSPFv3. Given that there are multiple good options that any reasonable network could deploy, I don't see why the IETF should make a recommendation in this space. NIST's goal was probably, "some implementations on the field just support static and maybe RIPng. We want to mandate something more scalable, and OSPFv3 is as good an option as any". -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
