Jared Gillis <> wrote on Thursday, August 06, 2009 20:48: > 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.
Well.. not sure how large you want to grow your L1 area, but you could investigate "advertise-passive-only" to only adveritse the loopbacks (all customer routes should be in BGP if you need to plan for growth), and you'll be fine, even with a 1000 nodes in the area. And if you reach this number, address summarization (and the implications of it) will become an issue (even with OSPF).. > 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... No, doesn't work with Integrated ISIS (only CLNS allows you to use different ISIS areas on a single node).. oli _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/