Routing
Highlighted
Routing

IS-IS Quick question

09.12.17   |  
‎09-12-2017 12:26 AM

As we are utilising IPv6, I wanted to use part of that IPv6 address as the unique ID in the NET address, so something along the lines of:

 

49.0001.34a4.29a6.0000.000e.00

 

Although the MX240 accepts the command and commits okay, when I look in the database, it tells me that the addresses are an invalid format..... Is that because of the Letters (alpha) rather than purely numeric? Or is there something else wrong?

 

It's obviously easy for me to check if the NET address is Alpha/Numeric capable simply by changing it to all numbers and looking, but thought I would ask if anyone had seen this behaviour before?

 

 

3 REPLIES
Routing
Solution
Accepted by topic author adgwytc
‎09-12-2017 02:34 AM

Re: IS-IS Quick question

09.12.17   |  
‎09-12-2017 12:58 AM

no the sytem id is too long

49.0001.34a4.29a6.0000.000e.00

correct

49.0001.34a4.29a6.0000..00

49.area.systemid.00

systemid is 6 byte on juniper not 8 byte, even though the standard allows also larger system-ids

1921.6824.0199

 

regards

 

alexander

Routing

Re: IS-IS Quick question

09.12.17   |  
‎09-12-2017 02:12 AM

Hi Alexander,

 

Many apologies, I typed this wrong.... we have the address configured correctly.... the 0000 is not there so it is the correct length.

 

We have IS-IS working as we are now able to ping to different networks but the actual seems to be the following:

 

I have set the following:

 

[edit protocols isis]

set traceoptions file isisdebug

set traceoptions flag error

 

I see the following in the output, but cannot see any issues in the config:

 

Notification not sent due to 5-second throttle as per rfc4444: isisSequenceNumberSkip

ERROR: IS-IS instance does not have a valid router ID

 

This does not seem right.... the IPv6 pings from anywhere to anywhere and all addresses are unique. As mentioned, although ISIS is operating correctly, I wanted to know what these errors really mean.

 

Thanks

Routing

Re: IS-IS Quick question

09.12.17   |  
‎09-12-2017 02:34 AM

Many apologies to everyone for wasting your time....

 

I did not notice that I had the same NET address on two of the routers. We have now fixed this issue and are seeing no more errors in the log file.

 

Thanks for your help.