From: Mark Lasarko (mlasarko@co.ba.md.us)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 19:45:45 GMT-3
./<begin_mini_rant>
All this 'stuff' and lately it's not the technologies; it's the
anomalies!
That's the part I am struggling with the most!
Undocumented?
Under-documented??
Not-even-close-to-applicable???
I am really beginning to believe they build so much functionality into
IOS they can't possibly document it all.
Seems to me the holes are growing larger, more common and less the
exception.
On the other hand perhaps this is a sign that I am becoming all the
more familiar and a better engineer for it.
Just the fact that I notice them in the first place :)
Still, I am not so certain that accepting this fact is a good thing?
I suppose it depends on each individuals level of paranoia
For me, my terror alert increases accordingly the more of these
gremlins I encounter...
Mocking me, reminding me that I cannot rely on that which is
documented.
Nor can I find sanctuary within CLI-based help.
The lab no longer frightens me - it's these insidious foibles. [Yack!]
:(
At the end of the day it is what it is, ad nauseum
./<end_mini_rant>
clns vs. ip as applied to ISIS "?Confirmed?" in my current version of
reality running:
C2600 Software (C2600-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.3(4)T4
3700 Software (C3725-JK9S-M), Version 12.3(9b), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
~M
>>> "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com> 1/14/2005 5:06:37 PM >>>
Good point with the IPv6 stuff, I hadn't researched any differences in
that
part yet!
For the lack of mentioning clns vs. ip in the ISIS part that would
likely be
a documentation anomaly. I believe it still works in all the 12.3
routers
that I have! But I'll have to go back and make sure I'm not just
going
crazy now. :)
Scott
_____
From: Mark Lasarko [mailto:mlasarko@co.ba.md.us]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:57 PM
To: swm@emanon.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com; ccie2be@nyc.rr.com
Subject: RE: Distance vs Distance
Greetings Scott, Tim, GS, etc...
1st, It appears there is RIP 'Distance' support in IPv6!
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios123/123cgcr/ipv6
_r/ipv6_04g.htm#wp1841586
"To configure an administrative distance for Intermediate
System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS), Routing Information Protocol
(RIP),
or Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) IPv6 routes inserted into the IPv6
routing table, use the distance command in address family configuration
or
router configuration mode..."
Examples:
ISIS
Router(config)# router isis cisco
Router(config-router)# address-family ipv6
Router(config-router-af)# distance 199
RIP:
Router(config)# ipv6 router rip cisco
Router(config-router)# distance 199
Very cool :)
Now that 'v6 is fair game I thought it worthy of mentioning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2nd,
In looking for a solid doc link to the ISIS distance [clns | ip]:
For example:
router isis
distance 115 ip
I checked 12.2 @
<http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fap
olo_r/clns/3rfclns1.htm#wp1041800>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fapo
lo_r/clns/3rfclns1.htm#wp1041800
and 12.3 @
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios123/123cgcr/isoc
ln_r/n5ftrcn1.htm#wp1041800
Only [CLNS] was mentioned?
I finally found an example that mentioned 'ip' in the context of ISIS
distance @
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fipr
_c/ipcprt2/1cfindep.htm#wp1001842
The educated I guess tells me that this is just another
under-documented
anomaly!
Only in the configuration guide?
Do you concur??
(Still working on that analogy, Tim - we have to start somewhere!)
Take care y'all,
~M
>>> "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com> 1/14/2005 3:59:02 PM >>>
That's an interesting analogy for it all. :)
When you use the retail version, you can have a broad ACL apply to any
neighbor and therefore affect the same change as the wholesale
version.
Which do you use? Well, here you lose the analogy. You should be as
specific as possible. Just because you should stay 500 feet back from
a
firetruck (per its sign) doesn't mean that you apply that to every
vehicle
you are near. Perhaps you do. Like AD, it's your own decision and
doesn't
really affect anyone else, but may lead you to make some
less-than-optimal
decisions.
As for ISIS, yes there are multiple versions. If you aren't careful,
when
you enter "distance isis" and go back to look at your config, you will
find
you are only changing distance on isis CLNS routes. There is also
"distance
isis ip" which is likely more what you want. But otherwise, there are
no
further delineations.
HTH,
Scott Morris, MCSE, CCDP, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service
Provider)
#4713, JNCIP, CCNA-WAN Switching, CCSP, Cable Communications
Specialist, IP
Telephony Support Specialist, IP Telephony Design Specialist, CISSP
CCSI #21903
swm@emanon.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
ccie2be
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 3:42 PM
To: Group Study
Subject: Distance vs Distance
Hi guys,
Have any of you had difficulty learning when to use the different
versions
of this command.
I have but now I think I got it and want to confirm with the pool of
GS
brain power.
Several protocols support a version of distance that specific to that
protocol.
For example, distance eigrp, distance ospf, and distance bgp. (Rip and
isis
don't seem to have an equivalent)
In addition, there's the plain or IP version of distance <AD#> <ip
addr
mask> [acl] command.
The way I think about these now is that the distance <protocol> version
of
the command is sort of "wholesale".
It will change the AD for all routes in the route table that match
that
protocol (or class) within that protocol.
While the distance <AD#> version of the command is more like "retail".
It
will affect those routes that that are either
from a certain neighbor(s) or match the optional acl at the end of the
command.
Q1: Do people agree with this conceptualization?
Q2: Can the same thing be done with ip version of the command that can
be
done with the protocol specific version
as long as the neighbors and acl are properly defined?
Q3: Has anyone come up with a simple way of knowing when using the ip
version of the command which ip address to use
when defining the source of the routes? I recall that sometimes it's
the
router ID of the neighbor but sometimes the physical
address but can never remember which.
All your thoughts and insights are appreciated.
TIA, Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 22:10:23 GMT-3