[j-nsp] IS-IS not installing route into RIB
draganj84 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 6 04:57:26 EST 2015
I meant to say that I myself might have not be clear enough about the
problem I'm describing. Sorry if that sounded a bit off - I know Mark is a
In any case, it is a single-topology, no-ipv6, single L2 domain with all
routers receiving correct LSP. The prefix is included in TLV 135, all
routers have correct information.
Same static route is redistributed in both ISIS and BGP.
>From what I know about JUNOS, it should install a valid route from ISIS RIB
into inet.0. It will not be active route (due to static /5), but it will be
there. In this case however it isn't.
This behavior is not observed when routes are different, as expected.
Unfortunately, we can't change preference of routes in production to test
We opened the case with our support, from some talk around it seems as it
is a bug so far, unless we're missing on something major here.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Alan Gravett <alangra at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dragan,
> Mark rarely misses the point from what I have seen with his contributions
> on this list.
> I have some initial suggestions inline with your own text so that it may
> begin to
> make sense.
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Dragan Jovicic <draganj84 at gmail.com>
>> I think you are missing a point.
>> ISIS route should still be in routing table, just not preferred (static /5
>> > isis /18).
>> The issue here is that only static is found in routing table. I hope it is
>> I tested on two different routers, injecting static route into both ISIS
>> and BGP. All routers in domain display both ISIS and BGP learned routes,
>> but ISIS is prefered.
> This may have to do with the differences between Link-state and other
> What happens when you change the route preference for IS-IS to be higher
>> However, on the two routers where the route is injected (a static discard
>> route), only local static and BGP learned route is showed. That doesn't
>> make sense.
> I would also be curious to know what happens if the two routers are
> different static routes - but am almost sure the behavior would be
> different. (you
> would see what you have been expecting in the current scenario)
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>> > On 6/Feb/15 09:28, Dragan Jovicic wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> The route is not in routing table of those two routers.
>> >> Every other router installs redistributed route, except those two which
>> >> are
>> >> redistributing the route. Those two only show static/5 route, not ISIS
>> >> form
>> >> other neighbor.
>> >> show isis route does not show that prefix is calculated, so it is not
>> >> ISIS RIB hence not in inet.0.
>> >> But LSP shows redistributed route. Once one of the hosts removes it's
>> >> static route, only then is new ISIS route installed.
>> >> I suppose the behavior I expected was to install ISIS route form other
>> >> neighbor as well, albeit as inactive.
>> > As static routes are better than routes learned from dynamic routing
>> > protocols, this is expected behaviour unless you tune the preference of
>> > either your static route or IS-IS on the affected router.
>> > Mark.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
More information about the juniper-nsp