[BBLISA] anybody doing IPv6 for real operations?/possible presentation topic

[Dean Anderson]

Well, I have to say, it looks pretty true so far.  OSPF4 and OSPF6 don't
necessarilly have to be separate router processes--that was a bit
overstated, but they could be and it appears quite easy to make V4/V6
routing inconsistent.  But the no-brainers I cited are no-brainers.  
There are no inter-op worries with CLNS; for those systems that don't
have OSI stacks (linux), everyone can easily test against known-working,
production-grade devices.  

There is work to be done, but that can be done in the timeframe needed.  
and if the work is done, success is guaranteed.  Its just a question of
whether we do the work to make it happen.

		--Dean

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Steve Meuse wrote:

> Dean Anderson expunged (dean at av8.com):
> 
> > By contrast, IS-IS handles multiple protocols in one process with less
> > overhead.  Configuaration & route distribution is always consistent.  
> > There are no inter-op problems, and we know its going to work.  Its a
> > no-brainer to use IS-IS instead of OSPF4 and OSPF6 together.  So once
> > you see that no brainer, the next obvious no-brainer is to use CLNS
> > instead of IPV6.  Once again, all the benefits of IPV6, none of the
> > drawbacks.  There are no inter-op worries with CLNS.
> 
> Is this troll bait, or do you actually believe that?
> 
> -Steve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bblisa mailing list
> bblisa at bblisa.org
> http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 256 5494