> On 2. sep. 2016, at 10:56, James Bensley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2 September 2016 at 09:04, Matjaz Straus Istenic <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> On 1. sep. 2016, at 15:11, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> What's the use case? >> >> Great question :-) >> Well, it is about people not accepting working and well proved network >> designs and have a tendency to reinvent the wheel ;-) >> >> Regards, >> Matjaž >> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 1 Sep 2016, at 13:57, Matjaz Straus Istenic <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi list, >>>> >>>> is somebody aware of a equipment that supports IS-IS Multi-Instance RFC >>>> 6822? I’ve seen that Cisco IOS XR can run multiple instances of IS-IS but >>>> I’m not sure if those are just multiple processes or true instances >>>> according to the RFC 6822. Same goes for Junos OS — instances or just >>>> multi-process? Well, IS-IS Multi-Instance is mentioned in Alcatel-Lucent >>>> user guides... > > > The most obvious use case I can see for it is SR, however we can > already to do this with multi-topology IS-IS. I guess you could do it > with MI-IS-IS too. Do you really need multi instance? If not it sounds > like you can use MT-IS-IS instead which does work in IOS-XR and Junos. > > We have lab testeed MT-IS-IS with SR and "it works" in IOS-XR. It's in > a bleeding edge Junos image so I haven't had a chance to test it in > Junos yet or do iner-op testing. > > Cheers, > James.
Thanks James, all.
I totally agree that same results can be obtained without this additional
complexity.
Kind regards,
Matjaž
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
