From: Chris Lewis \(chrlewis\) (chrlewis@cisco.com)
Date: Sun Aug 14 2005 - 04:30:56 GMT-3
Hi Gustavo,
Administrative distance is only locally significant and never carried in
any routing updates. Also the 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 is actually
maching all routes advertized, not all route sources.
You probably have an IOS where the help options listed by the ? Are
misleading. I'll illustrate with two routers, R1 and R3 connected over a
serial interface.
On R1 I configure a loopback with ip address 11.11.11.11/24, advertizing
this to R3 with a standard ISIS configuration yields the following
routing table entry.
i L1 11.11.11.0 [115/20] via 172.16.31.1, Serial1/0
If I now want to change the AD of this route, I can enter distance under
the router isis mode as follows:
R3(config-router)#distance 120 ?
A.B.C.D IP Source address
clns Distance applied for CLNS derived routes
ip Distance applied for IP derived routes
The help output is actually misleading. What you should enter is the
route you want to alter the AD of rather than the source address, if I
enter the following
R3(config-router)#distance 120 11.11.11.0 0.0.0.255
I get the desired routing table entry
i L1 11.11.11.0 [120/20] via 172.16.31.1, Serial1/0
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Gustavo Novais
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 5:19 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: distance command 2nd take
Hello
This issue was debated on a previous discussion, but not regarding ISIS.
When you wish to increase distance of routes from one source speaking
ISIS, (let's say 1.1.1.1) you'd insert the command distance 120 1.1.1.1
0.0.0.0 It does not work. When I do distance 120 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255
in deed I'm able to increase distance, but I'd like something more
granular.
I think that I'm failing to identify the source from which the routing
update is coming from, but I have 1.1.1.1 in my table as next hop of the
route.
In OSPF you have to identify the neighbor ID for this command fo work as
expected
Is it because the route is carried on a LSP and the source is not
identifiable as an IP address, as is OSPF?
I'd appreciate your thoughts...
Thanks
Gustavo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:01:19 GMT-3