Re: ISIS L1 vs L2

Personally, I'd rather go with a single L2 domain. That allows the flexibility
to add L1 domains in the future, simplifies database and removes redundant
hellos.

--
Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S)
Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert
:: This message was sent from a mobile device. I apologize for errors and
brevity. ::
On Nov 28, 2012, at 7:34, Ronnie Angello <ronnie.angello_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> So at least we agree don't do L1 only...  I honestly haven't done much real
world IS-IS design, but my reference is Optimal Routing Design (Chapter 5,
page 190).
>
> Ronnie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:56 AM, shiran guez <shiranp3_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> L1/L2 everywhere is not making much sense as you will have redundant
database for both L1 and L2. normally Core you will work L2 edge to "stub" you
will do L1/L2 and stub networks you will set L1, L2 will provide you future
flexibility, even if you think that you will not expand or change, it is not a
good design to do a limit yourself from the start, it does not cost anything
to do it L2, but it will cost plenty if you will need to change Core in
future.
>>
>> my 2 cents :-)
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Ronnie Angello <ronnie.angello_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> A single L1/L2 domain would be best as it provides flexibility...  That
way you already have a contiguous L2 domain.  If the network grows, it's
easier to add an L1 routing domain than it is to add an L2 routing domain. You
just add an L1 IS to the edge and push the L1 domain into the network...
>>>
>>> Ronnie
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Routing Freak <routingfreak_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi all
>>> >
>>> > In my customer core network where we had a heated about wither OSPF or
ISIS
>>> > and finally ISIS won the race for the core IGP due to some business
>>> > decision and now my problem here is that when i was designing the
network
>>> > with one large ISIS area with all the linka s L1, everyone opposed me
to
>>> > not to configure L1 and go for L2.
>>> >
>>> > I know that L1 is within single area and L2 can be connected across
areas
>>> > and also within a single area and it carries all the routes within L1
and
>>> > L2.
>>> >
>>> > But in my design , i have single large area with all links as L1, what
is
>>> > the problem in that, L1 or L2 it should be the same.
>>> >
>>> > I didnt understood what is the logic behind the fact that L1 should not
be
>>> > used and L2 should be used.
>>> >
>>> > I thought may be when they are forming more areas, then l2 makes sense,
but
>>> > they r not going to expand the site with another area, so why not going
for
>>> > L1 will suffice the requirement .
>>> >
>>> > L1 is within one single area and doesnt know any other routes of other
area
>>> >
>>> > L2 router is one where all the areas merge and exchange routes in one
>>> > separate area. It can be any area and not area 0 and just all the
routers
>>> > in that particular area should be running L2 adjacency with each other.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In one large area, which is better L1 or L2. Any ISIS Experts, be sure
to
>>> > reply to this.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shiran Guez
>> MCSE CCNP NCE1 JNCIA-ENT JNCIS-ENT CCIE #20572
>> http://cciep3.blogspot.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/cciep3
>> http://twitter.com/cciep3
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net