Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

OT: He probably meant MOP and LAT are not routable, man that
brings back 
memories.

Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 -0600
>> From: John Osmon <josmonrigozsaurus.com>
>> Sender: owner-nanogmerit.edu
>>
>>
>> Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries
differently for
>> IPv4 and IPv6?  I'm setting up a network where it
seems to make
>> sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I
can be talked
>> out of it rather easily.
>>
>> Years ago, I worked on a academic network where we
had a mix
>> of IPX, DECnet, Appletalk, and IP(v4).  Not all of
the routers
>> actually routed each protocol -- DECnet wasn't
routable, and I recall
>> some routers that routed IPX, while bridging IP...
>>     
>
> DECnet not routable? Not even close to true. At one
time DECnet was
> technically well ahead of IP networking and far more
commonly used. It
> was not until about 1993 that IP traffic passed DECnet
as the dominate
> protocol and ESnet continued to route DECnet, mostly to
support the High
> Energy Physics community. When the Hinsdale fire
segmented tie IP
> Internet in 1988, the global DECnet Internet survived,
albeit with limits
> bandwidth between the coasts.
>
> DECnet was far from perfect and, over time, IP
surpassed it in terms of
> both performance and robustness, but it was not only
routable, but
> globally routed long ago.
>
>   
>> This all made sense at the time -- there were IPX
networks that needed
>> to be split, while IP didn't need to be.  DECnet
was... DECnet -- and 
>> Appletalk was chatty, but useful. 
>>     
>
> AppleTalk was a royal pain! Gator boxes and FastPaths
would go insane
> and saturate the network with broadcasts. But AppleTalk
did have some
> really neat features.
>
>   
>> I keep hearing the mantra in my head of: "I
want my routers to route, and 
>> my switches to switch."  I agree
wholeheartedly if there is only one 
>> protocol -- but with the mix of IPv4 and IPv6, are
there any folks
>> doing things differently?  With a new protocol in
the mix are the
>> lessons of the last 10 (or so) years not as
clear-cut?
>>     
>
> Most routers are a blend of router and switch. The
Cisco 6500 and 7600
> boxes are probably the most popular large router in the
world, but the
> heart of each is a Catalyst switch. So, the switch
switches and the
> router routes, but they are both the same box.
>
> At a major networking show we would switch the IPv6
back to the core
> routers because of bugs in the IPv6 implementations on
many systems.
>
> You do what works best for your network. If it means
switching IPv6, so
> be it. This is probably especially true when the router
is from a
> company that charges substantially extra for IPv6
software licenses. If
> the is only limited IPv6 traffic, switching to a
central router might
> not only be technically the best solution, but the most
reasonable
> fiscal approach.
>   

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 07:12:54AM -0400, Jason LeBlanc
wrote:
> 
> OT: He probably meant MOP and LAT are not routable, man
that brings back 
> memories.

Yeah, I realy did, but my fingers typed 'decnet isn't
routable' because
that how the folks I worked with at the time described the
issue.  I was 
young at the time, and didn't understand the nuances (as
opposed to
being older and missing nuances now).

My old nuerons took over when I composed the message, sorry
for the
confusion.  Thanks to all the folks that have replied
off-list.
The (on topic) answers are coming where I expected them:
  - keep routing boundaries congruent
  - at local edges / stubs do whatever you want, but do it
in private, 
    and wash your hands afterwards (with appologies to R.A.
Heinlein)