Hi!
> I first suspected my lack experience with v6 access-lists and tried various > permutations of source/destination. Then prefix- instead of access-lists - > to no avail. Personally I exclusively use prefix-lists in route-maps related to routing protocols; I hate representing prefixes in ACL's. I understand that this doesn't fix the problem, but it may be something to look into to simplify the configuration. Then again, this may be a matter of taste ... > Nope - all connected interfaces are visible on all peer routers. Looks like > the > IS-IS routing process is ignoring the route-map alltogether. Well, why don't you try to remove the redistribution completely: > no redistribute connected route-map redistribute Perhaps, the network is redistributed by another mechanism and you are looking at the problem from the wrong angle. For that matter: passive-interface in ISIS has a different behavior than in OSPF. > 12.2(33)SXI12 and 12.2(33)SXJ6 both show this behaviour. Am I missing > something > more general, here? Or can it be remotely possible that this is not yet > implemented [tm]? I would suggest you give 15.1(2)SY a try. Regards, Lukasa _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
