From: Hunt Lee (huntl@webcentral.com.au)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 02:12:32 GMT-3
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your quick reply ;-) I just want to make sure that I didn't do
anything wrong...
Lo net - RTA ----- RTB ----- RTC
L1/L2 L1/L2 L1
I am trying to summarizing a whole bunch of Loopback networks at RTA into
the ISIS network (192.168.x.0/24 into 192.168.0.0/16)
At RTA:-
router isis
summary-address 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 level-1-2
net 49.0001.1111.1111.1111.00
And at RTB, I see both the aggregate route (192.168.0.0/16) as well as all
the specific routes.
RTB#sh ip route
Gateway of last resort is not set
1.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
i L1 1.1.1.1 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
2.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
i L1 2.2.2.2 [115/20] via 10.20.20.2, Serial0/0.2
3.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
i L1 3.3.3.3 [115/20] via 10.10.10.3, Serial0/0.1
i L1 192.168.8.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
4.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 4.4.4.4 is directly connected, Loopback0
i L1 192.168.9.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
i L1 192.168.4.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
i L1 192.168.5.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets
C 10.10.10.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0.1
C 10.20.20.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0.2
i L1 192.168.6.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
i L1 192.168.7.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
i L1 192.168.2.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
i L1 192.168.3.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
i L2 192.168.0.0/16 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0/0.1
RTB#
And the aggregate route didn't even bother to show up at RTC...
1.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
i L1 1.1.1.1 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0
2.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
i L1 2.2.2.2 [115/30] via 10.10.10.2, Serial0
3.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 3.3.3.3 is directly connected, Loopback1
i L1 192.168.8.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0
4.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
i L1 4.4.4.4 [115/20] via 10.10.10.2, Serial0
i L1 192.168.9.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0
5.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 5.5.5.5 is directly connected, Loopback0
i L1 192.168.4.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0
i L1 192.168.5.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0
10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 3 subnets
C 10.1.3.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0
i L1 10.20.20.0 [115/20] via 10.10.10.2, Serial0
C 10.10.10.0 is directly connected, Serial0
i L1 192.168.6.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0
i L1 192.168.7.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0
i L1 192.168.2.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0
i L1 192.168.3.0/24 [115/20] via 10.10.10.1, Serial0
I will try to upgrade my IOSs tonite and see if the summarization behavior
changes ;)
Regards,
Lee
>Also, according to TCP/IP VOL 1 (Solie), it mentioned that the ISIS
>summary-address
>command would automatically suppress on the more-specific routes during
>summarization, however I found that both the summary and the more specific
>routes
>show up on all the downstream routers.
Summary address should filter the contributing summaries. If it doesn't
you may have a buggy IOS.
Pete
>THanks in advance,
>
>Best Regards,
>Lee
>
> --- Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com> wrote: > At 01:18 PM 2/9/2003
> +1100, you
>wrote:
> > >Hi friends,
> > >
> > >Can someone please explain to me what is the difference between the
> "level-1",
> > >"level-2" & "level-1-2" keywords for the summary-address command for
> ISIS? And
> > >should one use each of these keywords?
> >
> > The level option specifies where the summary command should be
> applied. By
> > default, it is applied to any routes being injected into the L2
> > domain. However, you can change this to L1, or L1-L2. Hence, if you
were
> > redistributing routes into an L1 domain on an L1-only router (cisco
> > supports this) you could use L1. Further, for routes leaked from the
> > backbone into an L1 area, you would need to specify L1 in the event that
> > you wanted to summarize in that direction.
> >
> > I would suggest practising leaking routes into an L1 domain from the
> > backbone while summarizing to get a good feel for this (and correct me
if
> > I've taken any liberties with the technology :)
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >I have been using just "summary-address <10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0>" without
any
> > >keywords,
> > >and it seems to always work fine...
> > >
> > >Thanks so much for your help in dvance,
> > >
> > >Best Regards,
> > >Hunt
> > >
> > >http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
> > >- Send some online love this Valentine's Day.
> > >.
> > .
>http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
>- Send some online love this Valentine's Day.
>.
.
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:17 GMT-3