From: Hunt Lee (huntl@webcentral.com.au)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 20:07:58 GMT-3
Hi Peter,
True... I didn't have any "redistribute connected" nor putting
"passive-interface" on my Loopbacks. I have only got "ip router isis" on
all the Loopback interfaces, & yet they somehow managed to get into RT of
RTA & RTB... strange...
Regards,
Hunt
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter van Oene [mailto:pvo@usermail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2003 3:19 AM
To: Hunt Lee
Subject: RE: Summary-address for ISIS
03:12 PM 2/10/2003 +1000, you wrote:
>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
Shouldn't there be a redistribute connected in there?
>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 - 11:06:18 GMT-3