Alan,
Actually, I did implement your workaround before with the static host
mapping. But that is rather cosmetic when compared to something like the
overload bit. In theory (or at least, in *my* theory), setting the IS-IS
overload bit in one virtual routing instance should not interfere with
IS-IS in another virtual routing instance.
Unfortunately, the observed behavior on the MX platform suggests some form
of leaking. I'm just not entirely convinced now that a "virtual router"
really means a separate link-state database per virtual router. Within
this context, a virtual router should behave just like a physical router
--- or like a logical router, for that matter.
Am I mistaken here?
Clarke Morledge
College of William and Mary
Information Technology - Network Engineering
Jones Hall (Room 18)
Williamsburg VA 23187
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, Alan Gravett wrote:
Use static host mapping for each VR/lo0.x to avoid confusion
set system static-host-mapping R1 sysid 0100.0011.0001
and so on...
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Clarke Morledge <chm...@wm.edu> wrote:
I am trying to figure out how Junos handles IS-IS in an environment with
virtual routers (VRs). I see weird behvavior with some MX routers running
9.6 where some TLV information and some other details are "bleeding" between
different VRs when IS-IS is the routing protocol in those VRs.
By default, routing information in one VR should always remain separate
from routing information in a different VR. With our MX infrastructure, we
are stacking a bunch of different network topologies on top of one another
using VRs to keep the routing tables separate. I would assume that if you
run IS-IS in each VR that you will have a separate IS-IS database per VR,
analogous to having a separate routing table per VR. But I am having my
doubts.
----SNIP---SNIP-----
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
