[j-nsp] ISIS adjacency on the GigE interface

[Dave McGaugh]

Ahh, good point. I forgot that data point.

-Dave

On Jun 13, 2005, at 11:02 PM, Harshit Kumar wrote:

> 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
>>
>