-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Dec 28, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Saturday 27 December 2008 09:27:05 pm Randy Bush wrote:
as one who has been burned when topologies are not
congruent, i gotta ask. if i do not anticipate v4 and v6
having different topologies, and all my devices are
dual-capable, would you still recommend mt for other than
future-proofing?
In practice, we realized that enabling IS-ISv6 on interfaces
already running IS-ISv4 was problematic without MT pre-
configured.
at least in my case, I did turned ISISv6 in one WAN interface where
the router on the other side (a Cisco) did not have the ipv6 unicast
routing general command on and the isis adjacency went down
completely. So, yes that was an issue. But if you enabled IPv6 in both
ends first and then one interface at the time, it worked.
I used MT to avoid IPv6 black holes during the configuration period,
but as some boxes did not implemented it, I needed to use the
transition option where IPv6 adjacencies are carried in both native
and the MT-IPv6. Fortunately the two vendors that were lacking of MT
support are up-to-date, however not in time as the migration ended and
MT was removed and I left the company.
Roque.
- - - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAklabZkACgkQnk+WSgHpbO49PACg2Rx0yaH4owU2GA5koORD+pra
kjgAoMgoXYDVD2ayWhn56fkt0urcyyAx
=1tWb
- - - -END PGP SIGNATURE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAklacwUACgkQnk+WSgHpbO4TUgCfVpGEMMIdS8y0RrtNQh9rh1Ne
fQcAoIOBUc2O4em8NwqwR2UJDDm1Z7Mh
=YAeJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
