Re: [c-nsp] ISIS Fast Convergence (ASR920?)

> > SPF timers is generally a design decision, so the values above are just > reflecting different design approaches: Choosing an initial wait of 1ms (the > latter settings, i.e. spf-interval 5 1 50) tunes the network for optimal reaction > for link failures, so routers will

Re: [c-nsp] ISIS Fast Convergence (ASR920?)

> Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 10:18 AM > To: Jason Lixfeld; Cisco-nsp > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ISIS Fast Convergence (ASR920?) > > > Hey, > > There seem to be some conflicting suggestions for ISIS fast convergence > timers, and

Re: [c-nsp] ISIS Fast Convergence (ASR920?)

Hey, There seem to be some conflicting suggestions for ISIS fast convergence timers, and I can’t seem to understand why that would be. The former example is ISIS in a LFA FRR environment, the latter is from a general best practise guide. I can’t imagine LFA FRR or not would

Re: [c-nsp] ISIS Fast Convergence (ASR920?)

Hi Jason > On 28 February 2018 at 19:31, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > There seem to be some conflicting suggestions for ISIS fast > > convergence timers, and I can’t seem to understand why that would be. > > The former example is ISIS in a LFA FRR environment, the

Re: [c-nsp] ISIS Fast Convergence (ASR920?)

Hello, On 28 February 2018 at 19:31, Jason Lixfeld wrote: > Hey, > > There seem to be some conflicting suggestions for ISIS fast convergence > timers, and I can’t seem to understand why that would be. The former > example is ISIS in a LFA FRR environment, the latter is from

[c-nsp] ISIS Fast Convergence (ASR920?)

Hey, There seem to be some conflicting suggestions for ISIS fast convergence timers, and I can’t seem to understand why that would be. The former example is ISIS in a LFA FRR environment, the latter is from a general best practise guide. I can’t imagine LFA FRR or not would matter to the best