From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 19:32:13 GMT-3
Hey Mark,
That's a different question altogether.
Off-hand, I donno for sure if ipv6 requires metric wide. But, I'm pretty
sure isis requires multitopology for ipv6.
Maybe in your NMC labs, you can find some ipv6 and isis examples. I've
heard some good things about the NMC labs when it comes to ipv6.
Sorry, I couldn't be more helpful.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Lasarko
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 5:49 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com; ccie2be@nyc.rr.com
Subject: RE: isis metric-style transition
Greetings Tim,
Really?
I thought for sure IPv6 required this??
Something about the TLV's which advertise IPv6 info only being able to use
wide metrics...
I had not intended the question to be interpreted in the context of use for
IPv4 metrics > 63
Sorry if the question was not clear the way it was worded.
~M
>>> "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com> 05/20/05 5:06 PM >>>
mark,
Unless you're told to use wide metrics either explicitly (unlikely) or
implicitly ( count the ways this could be done), I wouldn't start adding
misc commands to your config except for alias' or other "shopkeeping"
functions.
Unless you need to have isis metrics that go higher than 63, I think, don't
bother.
But, to each their own.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Lasarko
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 2:30 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: isis metric-style transition
Greetings GS,
Aside from the extra TLV's generated...
Is it a good idea to use this option in the lab?
Are there other reasons we should stick to "wide"?
TIA,
~M
BTW - I also noticed this recent memo relating to the subject:
M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in IS-IS
http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/ids/draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology-10.txt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 10:11:59 GMT-3