Yes please that is the behavior I would expect to remain in place, otherwise could be disabled by a knob if needed.
adam From: Matthew Walster [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:37 PM To: Adam Vitkovsky Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ISIS MTU Ignoration good/bad??? On 26 June 2013 16:07, Adam Vitkovsky <[email protected]> wrote: Hi folks, I have just recently noticed that newer ISIS implementations actually ignore interface MTU discrepancies. I was relying on the local interface MTU comparison against the IIHs size to discover any MTU inconsistencies. I believe there should be a knob to enable/disable MTU comparison same as there's currently a knob to turn on/partially-off/off(XR) the IIH padding. I'd like to know the opinion of the community on this matter please. AIUI, IS-IS does not insist on MTUs being identical on either side of the link. It was only OSPF that screwed this up. What I think you're mentioning is that Cisco did hello-padding so that an IS-IS frame (once received) could only be processed if it met the buffer size on both sides -- it's documented here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a00801e1e2b.shtml M _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
