[c-nsp] IS-IS route separation/filtering

[Jared Gillis]

Daniel Verlouw wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:02 -0700, Jared Gillis wrote:
>> Hm, interesting though. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to pan out in the lab.
>> The LSPs don't seem to get flooded, but the routes do get passed through Router
>> A to all the stub routers, regardless of how I set up the mesh-groups.
> 
> right. Mesh-groups block only LSPs, CSNPs would still be flooded. 
> 
>> This is almost what I'm trying to do, there will be very few routes in IS-IS,
>> but the decree from on high is that each stub router should be totally stubby =(

Mostly due to longevity, planning for the worst case of high growth, IPv6
deployment, etc that will make each route in our routers very costly over time.
Also, given our topology, there's no reason for the stub routers to learn
anything but default.

It's looking like we might have to run OSPF on this, but we'd really rather
stick with IS-IS. It seems that OSPF's ability to put individual interfaces into
different areas might be the required feature that forces us that way. That is,
unless anyone knows a way to put an IS-IS router into different areas aside from
assigning multiple NET addresses...

> -why- !?
> 
>   --Daniel.
>