From: Blankenship Mr Gary C (BlankenshipGC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jun 22 1999 - 03:48:27 GMT-3
Mark:
Don't fret... I gave up trying to do DECNET phase V over a frame cloud for
the exact same reasons! For all intensive purposes, DECNET phase V is ISIS!
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark, Detrick [mailto:mdetrick@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 1:25 AM
> To: Derek Fage; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: ISIS Routing issues
>
>
> Derek,
>
> I worked on this over the weekend. I have a much better
> understanding of
> this now...
>
> In J Doyle's book it states that you can not go from p-to-p
> to p-to-m on
> clns because depending on the interface type (p-to-p or
> p-to-m) it sends
> different types of hello packets which are not compatible.
> This can be
> verified by doing a debug packet. If a p-to-p interface
> receives a p-to-m
> hellos it will not form an adjacency and vice-versa.
>
> I used p-to-m interfaces all around on my test. I used "fram map clns
> statements" and I forced the vertex to be the DR. I was able
> to get routes
> between the spokes and vertex but not between the spokes. I tried
> everything to get the routes to go from one spoke to another.
> It looks like
> a split-horizon type of situation, but there are no commands
> to turn on/off
> split-horizon for IS-IS and I don't think split-horizon applies to LS
> routing protocols. What was strange to me was that the LSDB
> was identical
> on all three routers, why then was the route table missing
> routes? So, I
> guess I was half right. I couldn't figure it out and after a
> day's work I
> gave up.
>
> Mark Detrick
> DSL Business Unit
> Cisco Systems
> 2569 McCabe Way
> Irvine, CA 92614
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Derek Fage <DerekF@itexjsy.com>
> To: Derek Fage <DerekF@itexjsy.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 2:22 AM
> Subject: RE: ISIS Routing issues
>
>
> > Thanks Mark,
> >
> > With debug on I do not see any encaps failures (and I can
> see the CLNS
> > packets going out over the F/R).
> >
> > I was just interested in why I could not get the
> mulitipoint interface
> > talking to the point-to-point interface. With OSPF you can
> either change
> the
> > network types or adjust the timers, but this does not seem to be an
> option.
> >
> > I think I'll leave it for now, I know I can get physical to
> physical,
> p-to-p
> > to p-to-p, and p-to-p to physical working, and apparentyle
> it is possible
> to
> > get multipoint-to-multipoint from what you say.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Derek...
> >
> > PS - why did Cisco change the naming of point-to-multipoint to just
> > multipoint ?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark, Detrick [SMTP:mdetrick@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: 19 June 1999 02:26
> > > To: Derek Fage; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: ISIS Routing issues
> > >
> > > First, this IS absolutely possible. I have done it successfully.
> > >
> > > Second, you said it yourself: "R2 is a point-to-point
> interface, and
> you
> > > cannot use a F/R map statement on this." That is why you must use
> p-to-m
> > > int on all participating routers that are both the hub
> and the spokes!
> > > You
> > > MUST have the map statements on the hub and the spokes
> for this to work.
> > >
> > > I wiped out my configs that had this to move on to other
> things. If I
> get
> > > time this weekend I will set it up again and send the configs.
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity... when you do debugs of the
> packets (check both
> > > sides) see if you get any encapsulation failure messages
> for the CLNS
> > > packets. Encapsulation failure messages mean that the
> router can't
> > > resolve
> > > the information neccessary to send the packet. This
> information is
> > > usually
> > > contained in the map statement.
> > >
> > > 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>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 3:37 PM
> > > Subject: RE: ISIS Routing issues
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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