internal routing-protocols for IPv6

[ksb]

How are you?

For IPv6 network designers, they should consider IGP and EGP.
RIPv6 has some problems for using tunneling.
Using tunneling, 1 hop of RIPv6 can be multiple hops on IPv4 networks.

I don't think that IPv6 developers depend on cisco routers.
There are many commertial routers for IPv6.
(Ex: Hitachi GR2000, Errison Telebit, Juniper(will support) and so on)

For large networks, OSPF(link state, Dijkstra algorithm) is better than
RIP(distance vecter, Bellman-Ford algorithm).
And I'm considering IS-IS.

Thank you.



Peter Debreczeni wrote:

> Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> >
> > Salutation/greetings, (also to everybody else who replied too)
> >
> > >> Just a general question; for the moment, static routing works just
> > >> fine, but what would be the best INTERNAL routing-protocol for a
> > >> IPv6-network?
> > >> (Looking into the possibility to have cisco-router or unix-boxes acting
> > >> as routers).
> >
> > >    - RIP-for-IPv6 (is this 'RIPv6' ???)?
> > >    Is it just as limited at RIP on IPv4?
> > > => RIPng is RIPv2 with IPv6 support. Cheap but very limited...
> >
> > True, but I guess this is a first step.
> > At least, it's better than static routing. ;-)
>
> RIP is a funny thing , but not a trully routing protocol ... :)
>
> >
> > At this time, I only have a single box (a cisco-router) acting as
> > 'gateway' to the 6bone; but I like to add redundancy to this; so I do need
> > to get rid of static routes.
> >
> > >    - OSPF.
> > >    OK, I've seen RFCs on this, but are there already implementations off
> > >    this?
> > > => at least one easy to find (Zebra).
> > As my 'central point' is a cisco-router, I would need it BOTH in cisco and
> > on the unix-boxes.
> >
> > (I could use RIP to go to a unix-box and then use zebra to continue in
> > OSPF; but let's not make things more difficult then necessairy. ;-)
>
> Why u need to use RIP? OSPF is a good internal use routing protocol, but
> we used with zebra , and sometimes zebra freezed our ciscos OSPF.
> I don`t remember what sw version, but if sb would like to know i`ll see
> it.
>
> >
> > >    - EIGRP?
> > >    Does EIGRP exist for IPv6? As this is 'cisco-stuff', not supported on
> > >    unix-boxes, I guess.
> > > => it is a patented protocol too. And as far as I know there is no support
> > > for IPv6 even it should be easy to add.
> > OK. Bad idea.
> > Next!
> >
> > >    - ISIS?
> > >    We used to do both OSI CLNS and IPv4 routing in this; so ... could IPv6 be
> > >    added? Are there implementations of this?
> > > => there are some plans about IPv6 support in the new IS-IS but not yet
> > > available.
> >
> > If I remember correctly from the time I used this), one of the great
> > things about ISIS, is that you can use a single routing-protocol to carry
> > both OSI and IPv4 routing.
> >
> > So, it would be great to use a single routing-protocol to carry both IPv4
> > and IPv6 routing.
> >
> > Anycase, are there any implementations of ISIS on unix-boxes. (without the
> > v6-extensions, that is!)
> >
> > >    - internal BGP?
> > > => *not* an IGP!
> > Technically speaking not, but you could use it as a IGP (just assign a
> > private AS-number to your 'customers').
> >
> > Again the same remark:
> > This would have the advantage to use a single routing-protocol for both
> > v4 and v6 routing.
> >
> > >    Supported by the unix-routers?
> > > => yes, BGP4+ for IPv6 is supported by many softwares (nearly as much
> > > supported as RIPng).
> > Great!
> >
> > Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
> > --
> > KB905-RIPE (HOME)                               belgacom internet backbone
> > (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity
> > kristoff@belbone.net                            fax: +32 2 2435122

--
  Kim, Sahng-Beom / Korea Telecom
  TEL :    +82-42-870-8322
  FAX :    +82-42-870-8279
  E-mail :  ksbn@kt.co.kr
--