From: James (james@towardex.com)
Date: Tue Oct 05 2004 - 17:27:38 GMT-3
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:43 GMT-3