From: alsontra@hotmail.com
Date: Sun Jul 25 2004 - 16:27:27 GMT-3
Sweet!
Thanks for the info.
Alsontra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Sheedy" <dansheedy@gmx.net>
To: <alsontra@hotmail.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Redistributing all Level 1 IP routes into the Level 2 process -
by default
> Hi Alsontra,
>
> I was actually doing an IE lab with some ISIS in it when i read your
email,
> so, being the curious little fella that I was, I added another router and
> made a second isis process on one of the existing routers, that already
had
> a level 1 connection.
>
> I found that it automagically brought the routes in from the second isis
> process into Level2 as well. When I went to a router 1 hop further away,
it
> saw it as a L2 route, coming from the router that had the two level 1
> connections.
>
> So it looks like the config manual is right!
>
> Dan Sheedz
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <alsontra@hotmail.com>
> To: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 8:40 PM
> Subject: Redistributing all Level 1 IP routes into the Level 2 process -
by
> default
>
>
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > Will a router with two separate ISIS processes automatically
redistribute
> L1
> > routes?
> >
> > I have always used the multiple net statements to support separate ISIS
> > areas, so I'm unclear about this point. The document you posted seems
to
> > suggest that L1 routers on a single router belonging to two separate
ISIS
> > process will automatically redistribute. Is this correct?
> >
> > Quote -
> >
> > "Redistribution- IP routes learned via Level 1 routing are advertised by
> > default into Level 2. Even when multiple Level 1 processes are
configured
> on
> > the same unit, this fact is still true. No additional configuration is
> > required to redistribute all Level 1 IP routes into the Level 2 process.
"
> >
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120t/120t5/ismarea.htm
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alsontra
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dehong,
> > If you are required to have differet interfaces on the same router in
> > different ISIS areas, then I would suggest two different ISIS processes.
> > This is the approach suggested by Cisco in the link below. When you
> > configure multiple NETs under one process, your database will show a
> single,
> > merged area.
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120t/120t5/ismarea.htm
> > Bob Sinclair
> > CCIE #10427, CISSP, MCSE
> > www.netmasterclass.net
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wang Dehong-DWANG1" <Dehong.Wang@motorola.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:37 PM
> > Subject: ISIS mutiple area question..
> >
> > > I have another question for the group. If you are asked to configure
> > multiple areas, say 2, under one router, should you configure two net
> > statements under one router isis or two seperate net statements under
> > different router isis? or it doesn't matter? My thought is two router
isis
> > statements, but I did see case 1 as well, so I would like to clarify it
> with
> > the group..
> > >
> > > Case 1:
> > >
> > > router isis
> > > net 49.area-A.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.00
> > > net 49.area-B.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.00
> > >
> > > Case 2:
> > > router isis
> > > net 49.area-A.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.00
> > >
> > > router isis area-b
> > > net 49.area-B.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.00
> > >
> > > thanks in advance..
> > >
> > > - Dehong
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:12:02 GMT-3