Hi Liban ! Thanks for your answer. But, a- "Configure IS-IS between Rx and Ry to discover quickly the link fail, but no increasing bandwith and CPU use. Between Rx and Ry are flowing only Level 2 PDUs". Libanm: you can configure P2P, you need to disable the hello padding which will decrease the BW, , for quick link failure you can tweak and play with the hello intervals, "hello interval-min" does the trick for me.
The objective for the task is to detect quickly the link failure. I thought as alternative the Hello interval-min command, but see what Cisco say about this command on the Command Reference: "A faster hello interval gives faster convergence, but increases bandwidth and CPU usage. It might also add to instability in the network. A slower hello interval saves bandwidth and CPU. Especially when used in combination with a higher hello multiplier, this configuration may increase overall network stability. It makes more sense to tune the hello interval and hello multiplier on point-to-point interfaces than on LAN interfaces." So, that's my doubt reason. I thought to reduce the hello interval on the DIS opposite side, because at the DIS side the Holdown Timer is around 10 sec (3,3 x3), and the other side is 30 sec (10hellox3). So, the fact is that at one side the failure is detected faster (DIS side).....but really I'm not sure. What do you think? b- Sorry, I see that you send attach and you write about Dr Scott, but the URL returns me an error...Can you help me with that? Thanks a lot Libban ! ________________________________ De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Mohamed, Liban [NTK] Enviado el: mar 27/11/2007 15:12 Para: [email protected] Asunto: Re: [OSL | CCIE_SP] CCIE_SP Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3 Liban Mohamed NTAC-IP Sprint/Nextel www.sprint.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) 678-291-3438 (PCS) 404-441-9701 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: CCIE_SP Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3 Send CCIE_SP mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_sp or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CCIE_SP digest..." Today's Topics: 1. IS-IS & MSDP/MP-BP (VARGAS, Carlos) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:08:43 -0300 From: "VARGAS, Carlos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_SP] IS-IS & MSDP/MP-BP To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi all Two questions for anyone can assists me: a) For two routers connected through ethernet, how you would configure for this inquiry? "Configure IS-IS between Rx and Ry to discover quickly the link fail, but no increasing bandwith and CPU use. Between Rx and Ry are flowing only Level 2 PDUs". Libanm: you can configure P2P, you need to disable the hello padding which will decrease the BW, , for quick link failure you can tweak and play with the hello intervals, "hello interval-min" does the trick for me. b) I see in all IPExpert configurations, when MSDP is configured, the same prefix that are publicated on BPG ipv4 unicast address family are configured on BGP ipv4 multicast address family too. I know that it's for RPFcheck, but, my question is we need to put the prefix on both RIBs, or it's only a best practice for this case? I will let Dr, Scott comment this :) Thanks a lot. Carlos Vargas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://onlinestudylist.com/pipermail/ccie_sp/attachments/20071126/8c6208 54/attachment-0001.html End of CCIE_SP Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3 **************************************
