Hi Cydon,
setting down bit will be supported from 16.2 with ‘then color2 1’
Best regards,
Krzysztof
> On 2016-Nov-18, at 14:08, Cydon Satyr <cydonsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Krasimir,
>
> I'm aware that would work. Also, if aggregate is redistributed to level 2
> as well (not just level 1), the originating router will not install this
> route into RIB - but I was sure this behavior would work if route is
> distributed into level 1 only as well.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Krasimir Avramski <kr...@smartcom.bg>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Cydon,
>>
>> Lower the aggregatde route preference below 18.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Krasi
>>
>> On 18 November 2016 at 13:11, Cydon Satyr <cydonsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello experts,
>>>
>>> If I create an aggregate route on L1/2 router and export it to Level1 ("to
>>> level 1"), this route does not have up/down bit set, making it eligible
>>> for
>>> leaking back to Level 2.
>>> What happens is that now router which originated aggregated route prefers
>>> same route over ISIS making a constant oscillation.
>>>
>>> Is there a way to prevent this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
