It comes down to personal preference now days in my opinion. Both ISIS and OSPFv3 allow you to run multi-af using the same protocol. Both of them dont run full SPF when a stub network is added/removed (unlike OSPFv2). How about vendor support? Perhaps ISIS has the upper hand here since its been around for so long, as compared to multi-af OSPFv3. If I had to build a network from scratch that need to support v4/v6, I would go with ISIS...but thats just personal preference. Some DC gear doens't support ISIS, so I guess it depends what the network is going to support. BGP as an IGP is also an interesting option =). *Pablo Lucena* On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 October 2015 at 22:57, <sthaug@nethelp.no> wrote:
- Needing OSPFv3 for IPv6 when you're alredy running OSPFv2 for IPv4 is less than optimal. I believe nowadays several vendors support OSPFv3 for both IPv4 and IPv6 - but this is not universal.
Our configuration is MPLS VPNv6 for IPv6. Therefore we have no native IPv6 in the backbone and no need for OSPFv3.
The IPv4 internet is MPLS VPNv4 so there should be no easy way to attack our OSPFv2 instance from outside. The attacker is simply not in the same VRF as the routing protocol.
Is this such an uncommon configuration? I am asking because nobody mentioned this in the thread.
Regards,
Baldur