Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] About MTU?

From: Les Ginsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:49:59 -0700

Tony is quite right. The protocol has no way to prevent this problem
completely, since configuration must be consistent throughout the
area/domain - not just with your neighbors. Checks when bringing up an
adjacency help, but do not eliminate the problem - and the extensions added
into ISO 10589:2001 do not prevent the problem either - though if used
area/domain wide they will detect and report misconfigurations - in some
cases before propagation failures actually occur.

It is still up to the network administrator to correct the misconfiguration.

   Les

> 
> 
> True. But, LSP acceptance tests in 10589 already take care of 
> this case.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Przygienda [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 6:06 PM
> > To: Ravindra Sunkad
> > Cc: Jeff Learman; Wang xuepu; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] About MTU?
> > 
> > 
> > Ravindra Sunkad wrote:
> > 
> > >  If an implementation brings down IS-IS on interfaces with MTU < 
> > > LSP_BUF_SIZE this problem will not arise.
> > >
> > >
> > > not good enough, the problem is transitive, you may have 
> interface 
> > > with MTU  4096, your LSP_BUF_SIZE is 1024 and you receive 
> from your 
> > > neighbor an LSP with size 2048 since his LSP_BUF_SIZE is 
> set to 2048
> > >
> > >     -- tony
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
> http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> 
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg