Bruce Pinsky wrote: >> But nothing necessarily wrong with redistributing the connected >> (possibly along with a route-map filter), both options would produce >> basically the same result. >> > > I personally don't like the externals, but that's me. > >>> If your IOS version supports it, you could use the >>> "advertise-passive-only" option in IS-IS. >> Bruce, what do you mean? This reduces the ISIS IP prefixes to a minimum, >> but not sure if it addresses Justin's goal.. >> > > My bad Oli....I was thinking he only cared about the VLAN interfaces not > considering there were other active IS-IS speakers on the box.
Yeah, I've got quite a few routed interfaces with IS-IS adjacencies. These SVIs are really one-offs that I want to eliminate. I've set as many SVIs as I can to passive. Unfortunately I've got one that I'm building an adjacency across that I have to rework. It's causing 2 additional adjacencies between the 7600s, a L1 and a L2. Thanks Justin _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
