From: John Neiberger (neiby@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Mar 13 2002 - 01:11:02 GMT-3
Thanks, good point. In this example that isn't occurring so
they really don't _need_ to do that, but I can see that it
might be a good practice anyway.
Regards,
John
---- On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Nick Shah (nshah@connect.com.au)
wrote:
> > Why would that be necessary? Doesn't 'is-type level-1'
force
> > this router to be a level one router on all interfaces?
>
> You can explicitly configure another instance of router isis
<tag/area>
> and
> define is-type level-2 and defeat the purpose. and that way
the router
> can
> exchange L1/L2 hellos.
>
> However a circuit-type level-1 on and interface would
absolutely nail it
> down to form a level-1 (or whatever is defined) adjacency
only with the
> neighbor connected to that interface.
>
> Nick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Neiberger" <neiby@ureach.com>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:15 PM
> Subject: ISIS level clarification
>
>
> > I'm looking at an example of ISIS configuration that
confuses
> > me. The requirement is to configure this router so that it
> > only exchanges L1 hellos with its neighbors. In the
solution
> > they have the following, which I thought would suffice:
> >
> > router isis
> > net 49.0001.0001.0001.0001.00
> > is-type level-1
> >
> > Then, the part that confuses me is that they also add 'isis
> > circuit-type level-1' to the interface configs.
> >
> > Why would that be necessary? Doesn't 'is-type level-1'
force
> > this router to be a level one router on all interfaces?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:02 GMT-3