From: Snow, Tim (timothy.snow@eds.com)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:37:02 GMT-3
I always have prefered using the "passive int" command as ISIS will
advertise that network as a stub rather than attempting to "run" isis on
that interface.
-----Original Message-----
From: SHARMA,MOHIT (HP-Germany,ex1) [mailto:mohit.sharma@hp.com]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:38 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: ISIS loopback Dilemma
HI All,
One more question regarding ISIS.
If the question specifies that isis should not send packets over loopback
interface but advertise it.
This link on Cisco
http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/97/is-is-ip-config.html does this by
just specifying the lo interface as passive under router isis.
However some other labs, also do specify "ip router isis" under the lo
interface and then make it passive.
I have tried both ways and both seem to work the same way.
The question now, is- Does it make a difference if we dont specify the ip
router isis command under the lo interface?
And THE GOLDEN QUESTION- Which is the best way of doing it?? THE CISCO WAY
;-) (maybe)
Thanks as always.
Smiles,
Mohit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:11:04 GMT-3