I have a hub-and-spoke topology where I want to implement isis functionality to the core router and bridging to all spoke ones (since they are not isis compatible), in order for those spoke ones to be transparent to hello messages exchanged between the core router and some other interior routers within each spoke router's site.
However, when allowing bridging of clns packets under the specified bridge group on all spoke routers, no clns/isis neighbors are established at all.
Is there something that I might be missing concerning the functionality of isis messages exchanged?
Is this a single core router with multiple end routers? How are the links configured? If you have bridging enabled on the core router to talk to the remote sites, and also have CLNS on the core router you may be hitting the issue that Cisco routers will not bridge a protocol they are configured to route.
I would suggest you either bridge everywhere(ugh!), look at IRB or look at ugrading the remote router to images that support ISIS.
If you are running 4000s, you want o be looking at replacing them anyway as they are getting rather long in the tooth!
ISIS message exhance is interesting - ISIS is the RP, where I presume what you are more interested in is the user traffic - out of interest what is the traffic?
As far as the traffic is concerned, on a LAN an ESH for example will just be a LAN packet, but the usual type field is probably length (IEEE 802.3) without any specific encapsulation. This IIRC are broadcast, and ISH frames are similar.
IRB means you can have kind of join the bridging and routing together - you can get the bridges traffic on the WAN to a BVI interface that has the routing config on it. That sorts out issues with encapsultion between the bridged traffic and the router.
Moving to routers that will support CLNS/ISIS means you can also ise ISIS as uyour IP routing protocol, meaning just one RP on the network, which has to be tidier!
Concerning Paul's comments, why did you suggest IRB as the bridge solution and not crb? Do you think that this will help? The problem so far is that isis messages do not reach the far end router.
According to Panagiotis scenario, imagine three remote routers (three sites) where the middle one is the transparent one (does not support isis) and we need to pass ip and ip/clns traffic from two links to the far end router. This is the case somewhat. But this does not work.
So where do we need to enable irb? And you need bvi int on all three routers (supposing that 4000 series routers supports this feature)? Is there any problem with the encapsulation of the isis packets? Options of ctunnel, tunnel int also do not apply.
Can you be more specific of how such a scenario can be operational?
Any option like the IRB and CRB solutions is a bodge. The best solution is to scrap the 4000s and get something current that will support ISIS. That way you will have something that is supportable - I do hope the 4000s are not carrying anything important - if there are problems it will be difficult to get help.
Any mix of bridge the traffic here, route it there is always going to be troublesome and difficult to support.
The two *real* solutions are:
1. Upgrade and do it properly
2. Bridge it and if there are bandwidth issues either look at using bridge filter tables or buy more bandwidth.
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...