From: Derek Fage (DerekF@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jun 18 1999 - 19:37:57 GMT-3
Mark,
I' fairly sure that there must be an issue with multipoint f/r interfaces,
that cannot be resolved like OSPF by using the ip ospf network equivalent
(there isn't one).
R1 S01. is multipoint whereas R2 S0.1 is point-to-point. I can see where the
issue would be with OSPF, but you do not seem to be able to change the
interface characteristics with ISIS. I'm not sure if you could change all of
the timers, but I do not think that would work.
The really strange thing is that R2 sees the adjacency as Up, whereas R1
never sees it getting passed Init. I have debugged F/R packets to ensure
that it is not an F/R map issue, and it does not appear to be.
R2 is a point-to-point interface, and you cannot use a F/R map statement on
this. You just use a F/r intf-dcli statement. If you notice, R1's
point-to-point interface works fine with R3's physical F/R interface (with
frame map clns statements in their). It's certainly starting to look like it
is not possible to get an F/R multipoint interface to tal to a
point-to-point (or phyical interface). Without the f/r map statement on the
physical interface of R3 I was getting errors when I did debug f/r packet.
Derek...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark, Detrick [SMTP:mdetrick@cisco.com]
> Sent: 18 June 1999 17:49
> To: Derek Fage; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: ISIS Routing issues
>
> Looking at it more closely,
>
> I noticed that your R1 int s0.1 is a multipoint and the router on the
> other
> side is R2 int s0.1 and it is point-to-point. When setting up this type
> of
> network the serial interfaces on all sides of a p-to-m should be set to
> multipoint. When both sides are set this way the routing characteristics
> will be consistent among all participating routers. This is probably not
> your problem, however.
>
> On router R2, I don't see the frame map clns statement.
> R1(hub)/R2(spoke)/?(spoke) are point-to-multipoint. Participating routers
> based on the subnet of the int. It appears that there is only one spoke
> at
> this time.
>
> On router R3, there is a frame map clns statement and I don't think you
> need
> one there. R3/R1 are point-to-point FR right?
>
> Mark Detrick
> DSL Business Unit
> Cisco Systems
> 2569 McCabe Way
> Irvine, CA 92614
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Derek Fage <DerekF@itexjsy.com>
> To: 'Mark, Detrick' <mdetrick@cisco.com>; Derek Fage <DerekF@itexjsy.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 9:18 AM
> Subject: RE: ISIS Routing issues
>
>
> > If you look at the configs, I have got the map statements in, but it
> still
> > does not work.
> >
> > Derek...
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark, Detrick [SMTP:mdetrick@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: 18 June 1999 17:17
> > > To: Derek Fage; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: ISIS Routing issues
> > >
> > > I have read Jeff Doyle's book and he makes a statement that IS-IS
> (really
> > > CLNS) can't be done over a point-to-multipoint interface. However, he
> is
> > > not correct. What will make it work are map statements. Instead of
> > > mapping
> > > IP addresses, map the CLNS address to the DLCI.
> > >
> > > Mark Detrick
> > > DSL Business Unit
> > > Cisco Systems
> > > 2569 McCabe Way
> > > Irvine, CA 92614
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Derek Fage <DerekF@itexjsy.com>
> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 6:58 AM
> > > Subject: ISIS Routing issues
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi there,
> > > >
> > > > I'm now playing with IS-IS routing for IP in my lab (attempting to
> > > replace
> > > > an OSPF configuration).
> > > >
> > > > The links are a mixture of ethernet and serial (Frame Relay).
> > > >
> > > > I have no problems with ethernet links, F/R physical or
> point-to-point
> > > > links, but I do not seem to be able to get a link between a F/R
> > > > point-to-point link on one router to form an adjacency with an F/R
> > > > multipoint link on another router.
> > > >
> > > > On the point-to-point link, the adjacency appears to form (show clns
> > > neigh
> > > > displays the remote router as being Up), but on the multipoint
> router
> > > the
> > > > clns neigh seems to stay in Init state.
> > > >
> > > > I cannot find anything talking about F/R issues in the Cisco
> > > documentation,
> > > > and just want to check that I'm not attempting to flog a dead horse
> > > here.
> > > > Should this configuration work ?
> > > >
> > > > Extract from configs at end of email
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Derek...
> > > >
> > > > R1-multipoint-----point-to-point-R1-ethernet-----ethernet-R5
> > > > |
> > > > | f/r point-ro-point
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > | f/r physical
> > > > |
> > > > R3
> > > >
> > > > R1
> > > > clns routing
> > > > int s0.1 multipoint
> > > > ip address 172.16.254.1 255.255.255.0
> > > > ip router isis
> > > > frame map ip 172.16.254.2 102 broadcast
> > > > frame map clns 102 broadcast
> > > > int s0.2 point-to-point
> > > > ip address 172.16.253.1 255.255.255.0
> > > > frame-relay interface-dlci 104
> > > > ip router isis
> > > > router isis
> > > > net 00.0002.1111.1111.1111.00
> > > >
> > > > R2
> > > > clns routing
> > > > int e 0
> > > > ip address 172.16.5.2 255.255.255.0
> > > > ip router isis
> > > > int s0.1 point-to-point
> > > > ip address 172.16.254.2 255.255.255.0
> > > > frame-relay interface-dlci 201
> > > > ip router isis
> > > > router isis
> > > > net 00.0002.2222.2222.2222.00
> > > >
> > > > R5
> > > > clns routing
> > > > int e 0
> > > > ip address 172.16.5.5 255.255.255.0
> > > > ip router isis
> > > > router isis
> > > > net 00.0002.5555.5555.5555.00
> > > >
> > > > R3
> > > > clns routing
> > > > int s0
> > > > ip address 172.16.253.3 255.255.255.0
> > > > encaps frame-relay
> > > > frame-relay map ip 172.16.253.1 103 broadcast
> > > > frame-relay map clns 103 broadcast
> > > > ip router isis
> > > > router isis
> > > > net 00.0004.4444.4444.4444.00
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:39 GMT-3