From: James (james@towardex.com)
Date: Tue Oct 05 2004 - 18:03:46 GMT-3
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 11:00:54PM +0200, Sameh El Tawil wrote:
> James,
> Actually no adjacency comes up of any kind.. Fortunately I have not erased
> the configs. Let me show you :
Ah I see. Thanks for verifying my curiosity! :)
-J
>
> 2610 eth0/0 ---- 2612 eth0/0
>
> 2610 Config:
> -----------------
> interface Ethernet0/0
> ip address 172.16.19.3 255.255.255.0
> ip router isis
> half-duplex
> !
> interface Serial0/0
> no ip address
> ip router isis
> no fair-queue
> !
> interface BRI0/0
> no ip address
> shutdown
> !
> router isis
> net 00.0002.0008.213c.8c80.00
> metric-style wide
> log-adjacency-changes
> !
>
> 2612 Config:
> -------------
> interface Ethernet0/0
> ip address 172.16.18.15 255.255.255.0
> ip router isis
> half-duplex
> !
> interface Serial0/0
> no ip address
> ip router isis
> shutdown
> no fair-queue
> !
> interface TokenRing0/0
> no ip address
> shutdown
> ring-speed 16
> !
> interface BRI0/0
> no ip address
> encapsulation hdlc
> shutdown
> !
> router isis
> net 00.0002.00b0.6426.3f20.00
> metric-style wide
> log-adjacency-changes
> !
> ----------------------------------------
> Apparently no adjacency is coming up:
> ----------------------------------------
> 2610#sh clns ne
>
> 2610#
> ---------------------------------
> A debug isis adj shows you why:
> ---------------------------------
>
> 2610#debug isis adj
> IS-IS Adjacency related packets debugging is on
> 2610#
> *Mar 1 00:12:39: ISIS-Adj: Rec L1 IIH from 00b0.6426.3f20 (Ethernet0/0),
> cir type L1L2, cir id 00B0.6426.3F20.02, length 1497
> *Mar 1 00:12:39: ISIS-Adj: No usable IP interface addresses in LAN IIH from
> Ethernet0/0
> 2610#
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James" <james@towardex.com>
> To: "Sameh El Tawil" <eltawil@free.fr>
> Cc: <gladston@br.ibm.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:27 PM
> Subject: Re: ATT bit
>
>
> > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 06:12:10PM +0200, Sameh El Tawil wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Hmm are you sure? Does IP ISIS not come up, but does CLNS maintain adj?
> >
> > Just asking/curious...
> >
> > -J
> >
> > --
> > James Jun TowardEX
> Technologies, Inc.
> > Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT
> Outsourcing
> > james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth
> Services
> > cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc:
> www.twdx.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
-- James Jun TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth Services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:43 GMT-3