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

I agree. I think the use of MT-ISIS when we have ipv6 is always desirable not only when we have TE.

Isacco 

Inviato da iPad

Il giorno 23/lug/2011, alle ore 09:37, "Ivan Pepelnjak" <ip at ioshints.info> ha scritto:

> 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
>