For an adjacency in L1 to come up, the area ID must match. This is not the case for L2.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/integrated-intermediate-system-to-intermediate-system-is-is/200293-IS-IS-Adjacency-and-Area-Types.html On 18 July 2017 at 13:02, Aaron Gould <aar...@gvtc.com> wrote: > https://www.juniper.net/assets/us/en/local/pdf/study- > guide/study-guide-jncip > .pdf > > > > page 279 of 708 - shows the topology > > > > page 295 and 296 of 708 - begins to speak of a problem with r5 not being > able to become adjacent with r6 and r7 because the NET's area ID portion is > different at Level 1 with r6 and r7. once changed to 0002 to match r6 and > r7 level 1, everything works. > > > > Question, why doesn't this then create an issue with r5 now not having a > matching NET area ID 0001 with r3 and r4 and thus creating the same issue > that we previously saw with r6 and r7, but now with r3 and r4 ? > > > > in other words, if the adjaceny problem from r5 to r6 and r7 was because of > a mismatched area ID, then why after changing r5's area ID to 0002 to match > r6 and r7, why didn't this break the adjacencies with r3 and r4 since now > r5 > deosn't match r3 and r4 area id of 0001 ? > > > > -Aaron Gould > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp