RE: ISIS Redistribution [7:84085] posted 02/13/2004
- Subject: RE: ISIS Redistribution [7:84085]
- From: "Peter van Oene" <pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:35:39 GMT
At 02:04 PM 2/13/2004, Joseph Rothstein wrote:
>I just set this up myself, and the same thing ahppens. I have yet to figure
>out why. I know that ISIS is different than other routing protocols, but no
>one can explain to me why. This also happnes with EIGRP. The solution is
>easy, but why do you have to use it.
The routes in question are not ISIS routes from the perspective of the
local router given the connected interface supercedes them. Hence,
redistributing connected is necessary if you wish to push them to another
protocol process. I recall a thread in CCIE-Lab about this maybe a year or
so ago that more illustrative.
>Post if you find out why.
>P.S. Maybe we should send an e-mail to Radia Perlman and ask her since she
a hair split, but this is purely an implementation issue so you'd need to
bug someone who was at c who wrote the code.
>**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
Message Posted at:
**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html