From: Joe Chang (changjoe@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Dec 28 2002 - 02:56:02 GMT-3
Here's a wild guess. In the OSPF database an external route which has a next
hop that is also an external route cannot be part of the routing table.
Perhaps IS-IS follows this rule too? Are your two missing routes external?
----- Original Message -----
From: <gwp@uaes.org>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 12:31 AM
Subject: IS-IS Issue
> Hello, all. Any idea why two routers sharing an Ethernet segment
> (192.138.192.0/19) would show IP networks from each other in their isis
> databases, but NOT have them in the ip routing table?
>
> E.g.:
> Router A is level-1 only
> Router B is level-1-2
>
> RouterA# show isis database xx00.0800.1938.00-00 detail
> IP Address: 192.178.183.13
> Metric: 7 IP 200.200.200.88 255.255.255.252
> Metric: 2 IP 192.138.192.0 255.255.224.0
> Metric: 16 IP 192.178.183.12 255.255.255.252
> etc., etc.
>
> RouterB# show isis database xx00.0800.0938.00-00 detail
> IP Address: 172.16.30.30
> Metric: 4 IP 192.138.192.0 255.255.224.0
> Metric: 4 IP 172.16.30.0 255.255.255.192
> Metric: 0 ES xx00.0800.0938
>
> Yet, the 172.16.30.0 network doesn't show up in Router B's ip routing
> table, and 192.178.183.12 doesn't show up in Router A's ip routing table.
>
> Do they have to advertise the "shared" network with the same metric, or
> some other such restriction?
>
> Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you,
> Greg Posey Jr
> CCIE #7981
> CSS1, CCSE
> M.S. EE
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:54 GMT-3