On Monday, December 09, 2013 03:43:08 PM Lukas Tribus wrote: > 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 ...
I typically stay way from redistribution, apart from two
scenarios:
1. l3vpn's, since redistribution is local to an
l3vpn context.
2. Anycast DNS, because IS-IS in Quagga is unusable.
So OSPF on a FreeBSD Quagga installation, talking
to OSPF on a router, and the router then
redistributes (with prefix list matching, of
course) that data into IS-IS for the rest of the
network to see.
> 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.
I'm thinking the OP is either running IS-IS on external
links, or running passive-interface on them.
Either option will guarantee external routes being
introduced into the network. If you don't want to that, run
BGP's next-hop-self and forget about IS-IS on the external
links.
My recommendation is to run IS-IS on internal links and
Loopbacks only, and put the rest into iBGP.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
