> -Original Message-
> From: Clarke Morledge [mailto:chm...@wm.edu]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 2:27 PM
> To: Stefan Fouant
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [j-nsp] IS-IS database leaking across virtual routers?
>
> Just to put a little closur
M
To: Alan Gravett
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] IS-IS database leaking across virtual routers?
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
> -Original Message-
> From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-
> boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Clarke Morledge
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:31 PM
> To: Alan Gravett
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] IS-IS da
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
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 wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how Junos handles IS-IS in an environment with
> virtual routers (VRs). I see we
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 def
6 matches
Mail list logo
