[ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2

IS-IS MT is highly desirable in most circumstances anyway, but we haven't considered that a good-enough reason to make it MANDATORY.

However, if you run MPLS TE without MT, you get black hole routing the moment the first autoroute MPLS TE tunnel is established; thus we've made IS-IS MT MANDATORY for networks running MPLS TE.

Details here: http://blog.ioshints.info/2010/03/is-ismpls-tenative-ipv6fail.html

However, I'm perfectly happy if the WG decides to make IS-IS MT mandatory in all cases (would make sense anyway).

Cheers,
Ivan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of
> Jan Zorz @ go6.si
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:12 AM
> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
> 
> On 7/22/11 3:57 PM, Isacco Fontana wrote:
> > Hi,
> > relating on following sentence: "If MPLS Traffic Engineering is used in
> > combination with IS-IS routing protocol, the equipment MUST support
> > "M-ISIS: Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
> > Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)" [RFC 5120]"
> >
> > I think the Multitopology ISIS can be used also without TE ad said in
> > RFC 5120 with IPv6: "This document describes how to run, within a single
> > IS-IS domain, a set of independent IP topologies that we call
> > Multi-Topologies (MTs). This MT extension can be used for a variety of
> > purposes, such as an in-band management network "on top" of the original
> > IGP topology, maintaining separate IGP routing domains for isolated
> > multicast or IPv6 islands within the backbone, or forcing a subset of an
> > address space to follow a different topology. "....
> 
> thnx for comment.
> 
> What would be suggested change in text?
> 
> Let's see if Ivan "mpls-master" Pepelnjak agree on proposed change :)
> 
> Cheers, Jan