Re: draft-mickles-v6ops-isp-cases-05.txt

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 01:56:21AM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> 
> 	Even if you chose to run IS-IS for both IPv4 and IPv6, you still need
> 	to maintain IPv6 routing table with IS-IS, which will have memory
> 	constraints to routers.  We could share some information (like router
> 	adjacency) among IPv4 IS-IS and IPv6 IS-IS, but how significant it is
> 	to share such information compared to run IPv4 IS-IS + OSPFv3?  The
> 	above text seems to me very IS-IS centric view.  Is there any
> 	quantitative measurement on this topic?

There is a discussion of such issues in the 6NET report of NRENs who have
migrated dual stack.  See 
	http://www.6net.org/publications/deliverables/D2.2.2.pdf

Regarding PIM-SM, there is a lot of operational experience in m6bone and 
m6net, but this isn't really written up yet.  

Tim