From: Peter van Oene (pvo@usermail.com)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 20:34:53 GMT-3
At 09:07 AM 2/11/2003 +1000, Hunt Lee wrote:
>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...
If you put ip router isis on the loops, that should put them in the ISIS
process.
>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