From: Joe Chang (changjoe@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Jun 21 2004 - 09:43:12 GMT-3
Route leaking prevents sub-optimal routing arising from summarization. I
don't think that's the problem here - at least one route is being lost
somewhere.
Try pinging from R4 with the source address set to its loopback. If it
works, then it is the ethernet that is not getting fully advertised.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Underhill" <stepnwlf@magma.ca>
To: "Ty" <tycampbell@comcast.net>; "Nick Tucker" <kitt@vnet.net>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Basic ISIS question? I hope anyway.
> Remember that ISIS is maintaining two seperate databases for L1 and L2
> areas.. How are you sourcing the ping? If you are sourcing it from an
> interface in an L1 area, you need to 'leak the routes' into that area ex.
> Redistribute isis 115 level-2 into level-1 distribute-list 100
> Metric-style wide
> What exactly are you redistributing on R1? ..and does it match the is-type
> of the connected and loopback interfaces?
> Default is l1/l2, is this reflected in your redistribution statement?
> Hard code all is-types to L1/L2 then reflect this in the redistribution
> statement and see if that works.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ty" <tycampbell@comcast.net>
> To: "Nick Tucker" <kitt@vnet.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Basic ISIS question? I hope anyway.
>
>
> > are the is-types all level 1/2 or do you have a combination of level 1
and
> > level 2. ?
> >
> > is the frame network point to point or point-to-multipoint ?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Nick Tucker" <kitt@vnet.net>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:49 AM
> > Subject: Basic ISIS question? I hope anyway.
> >
> >
> > > Ok Im going to bite the bullet. I've labbed this up a few times, with
> the
> > > same results, even mixing up the media...same.
> > >
> > > I've been doodling with ISIS some. Topology is this:
> > >
> > > / ---R2
> > > R4----Ethernet-----R1------Frame --|
> > > \---R3
> > >
> > >
> > > R4 runs only ISIS.
> > > R1 runs OSPF and ISIS, and mutually redistributes.
> > > R2 & R3 run OSPF only.
> > >
> > > I've advertised R1/R2/R3 loopbacks into OSPF.
> > > R4's loopback has been advertised into ISIS.
> > >
> > > I can see all routes everywhere. From R1/R2/R3, I can ping R4 no
> problem.
> > > From R4, even though I can ping everywhere - I can only ping R1.
> > > I've even extended this network will past R3, adding like 3 more links
> > past
> > > it. It will get R4's route there, and also be able to ping it.
> > > But not vice-versa.
> > >
> > > Now, to ask the stupid question, why?
> > >
> > > I've peeked thru the archives some, but in vain. I did run across
some
> > > info concerning ISIS and that it doesn't advertise connected networks
> (or
> > > was that redistribute) by default. This isn't the type of problem I'm
> > > having, as I'm seeing all routes advertised everywhere. It seems like
> > this
> > > problem may have been fixed in 12.2 anyway, as this was pretty far
back,
> > if
> > > I remember correctly.
> > >
> > > So someone please tell me I've messed up something simple ! I can lab
> it
> > > up again this evening and provide configs if necessary.
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:45 GMT-3