[j-nsp] ISIS adjacency on the GigE interface

[Harshit Kumar]

Well, that shouldn't matter. In that case his adjacency
 wont come up even with the FEs between the juniper routers.

Harshit


> -----Original Message-----
> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dave McGaugh
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:57 PM
> To: Johnny Kui
> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net; Kevin Oberman
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] ISIS adjacency on the GigE interface 
> 
> Ok, one other thing to try:
> Do you have a hostname defined on the two Junipers? Trying to  
> remember back... a few months ago, I had a a couple boxes set up in  
> the lab where ISIS adjacencies wouldn't come up and if I remember  
> right, it was because the hostname was not set on the two boxes (I  
> know it sounds silly, maybe the Juniper guys can elaborate -- maybe  
> having to do with TLV 137?).
> 
> If that doesn't help, I'd agree with Harry that setting some trace  
> options are your next step.
> 
> -Dave
> 
> On Jun 13, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Johnny Kui wrote:
> 
> > I changed the AFI to 49, and explicitly configured an interface on  
> > both sides (instead of "interfaces all" in the protocols section),  
> > but the problem still exists.
> > But if I replaced the M10 with a Cisco router using the same  
> > configuration, I can establish adjacency.
> > Any other thing I can try?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > Kevin Oberman <oberman at es.net> wrote:
> > > From: Dave McGaugh
> > > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:48:24 -0700
> > > Sender: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > >
> > > I'm not an ISO expert, but here goes :)
> > > You might try changing the AFI from 99 to 49. Some docs I've read
> > > seem to suggest that the AFI is, among other things 
> responsible for
> > > defining the addressing format. I'm not sure whether 
> JunOS enforces
> > > such a thing, but if your addressing structure conflicts with that
> > > which is defined for AFI 99, it could create problems..
> > >
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > You have it right. AFI is the Authority and Format Identifier. 49  
> > is the
> > "binary local" space and the format is 20 octets. It should 
> be used if
> > you do not have a ANSI assigned NSAP. 99 is probably bogus, but I  
> > can't
> > find my OLD OSI/GOSIP documentation to confirm it.
> > From RFC137:
> >
> > The only other defined Authority and Format Indicator (AFI) which
> > leaves sufficient space for both an IPv6 address and TCP port number
> > is the binary local AFI (49).
> >
> > So, if you don't have an official NSAP (probably with an AFI of  
> > 47), 49
> > is the one to use. It is 20 octets ling and normally in the 
> format is
> > written as:
> > 49:xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.00
> >
> > Note the final 00. This is the selector byte (don't worry 
> what that  
> > is)
> > and should always be 00. It is STRONGLY recommended that something
> > meaningful be encoded in the 18 available octets. You can 
> fit an IPv6
> > address in there just fine or do something else. Just as 
> ling as it is
> > unique in your ISIS fabric.
> > -- 
> > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
> > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
> > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
> > E-mail: oberman at es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
> >
> > Discover Yahoo!
> > Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check  
> > it out!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>