From: Sameh El Tawil (eltawil@free.fr)
Date: Tue Oct 05 2004 - 13:12:10 GMT-3
I have seen the same thing when I was testing ISIS in my lab. The attached
bit is taken into consideration and generates the default route by default.
There is no need to enable CLNS routing.
My guess is that the ISIS implementation has evolved a lot since the Doyle
book was published. This is not the only thing that doesn't tally.
Another example is the statement that ISIS adjacencies do not take into
consideration the interface IP addresses. ISIS adjacencies DO take the
configured interface IP address into account. If you try to bring up an ISIS
adjacency with a neighbor that is not part of the locally configured subnet,
it won't come up.
For reference I am using 12.2(24) on most routers and 12.2(15)T on the rest.
Rgds,
Sameh
----- Original Message -----
From: <gladston@br.ibm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 4:35 PM
Subject: ATT bit
> I must be missing something here. Any help?
> I am used to see the default route on L1 routers attached to L2 routers.
And I just configure "ip router isis" under the interface.
> Now, reading Doyles's volume I about ISIS, he says:
> "The problem is that the ATT bit is a CLNS function, and the IP process
cannot directly interpret the bit....The first solution is to enable IS-IS
for CLNS on the interfaces in addition to IS-IS for IP."
>
> Just to be sure I was not missing the default state, I disabled CLNS:
>
> r2(config)#int ser 0.24
> r2(config-subif)#no ip router cl
> r2(config-subif)#no clns
> r2(config-subif)#no clns router isis
>
> r2#clear clns ne
> r2#clear ip rou *
>
> r2#sir is
> i*L1 0.0.0.0/0 [115/10] via 172.16.24.4, Serial0.24
> r2#
>
> Sorry if the topic was discussed already.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:43 GMT-3