Steinar Haug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in response to > Pete Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED], whom wrote: >> I'm now contemplating going back to OSPF. The relevant reasons are: >> >> 1) We have some use for Catalyst 3550s in our network, and >> AFAIK they don't speak ISIS. >> 2) We're having extreme pain trying to bring up ISIS for IPv6. > > I was wondering whether you could elaborate a bit more on the > second point? (Background: We have a Juniper based backbone, > with IS-IS and IPv6, and it "just works". Due to an upcoming > merger we are likely to have a mixed Juniper/Cisco backbone > in the not too distant future, and any info on problems with > IS-IS for IPv6 would be interesting.)
Really? This is the basic configlet I applied to our routers -n- switches, ignoring any issues with the cef commands, of course. I haven't seen any issues at all with our roll-out. ! ipv6 unicast-routing ipv6 cef ipv6 cef distributed ! router isis is-type level-2-only metric-style wide no adjacency-check ! address-family ipv6 multi-topology no adjacency-check ! _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
