On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 21:46, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: > On 2/Oct/18 21:13, James Bensley wrote: > > I presume that if one were to run MT-ISIS there would be no impact to IPv4? > > > We already run MT for IS-IS. I consider this as basic a requirement as "Wide > Metrics".
I'm not sure about Junos but IOS-XR can run wide metrics in ST-ISIS so I wasn't going to assume MT :) > However, the issue here is BFD sees the whole of IS-IS as a client. So if BFD > has a moment, it will signal its client (IS-IS), regardless of whether the > moment was for IPv4 or IPv6. Ah, yeah, that is a bummer :( > I imagine that re-running adjacencies and SPF just for the IPv6 topology > would be a vendor-specific solution to the problem. However, wouldn't it just > be easier to support BFD for IPv6 in the PFE as Juniper already does for IPv4? > > I'd be interested to know if BFD works OK if you use public IPv6 > addresses for IS-IS adjacencies (although it's a waste of IPs, I'd > still be curious). > > > Interesting. > > What I do know is that if you are running BFD for static IPv6 routes, it runs > in the PFE. But if the routes are learned via an IGP (IS-IS or OSPFv3), it > can only run in the RE. That is interesting. Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
