Re: IS-IS on FRR - Is Anyone Running It?

[Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>]

On 6/Apr/20 12:31, Saku Ytti wrote:

> So FRR should have an addition of LSP-MTU which should default
> to 1492B to avoid interoperability issues when it must generate large
> LSP PDU.

A couple of weeks ago, my Google-fu led to me some kind of "lsp-mtu"
command for FRR. I tried it everywhere but it wasn't supported.


> So better not make config where FRR needs to inject larger LSP PDU,
> might be more excitement than what people would like. Someone can test
> what happens when you redistribute more prefixes than can fit in 1492B
> LSP PDU and if those LSPs propagate to Ciscos and Juniper, blackhole
> or crash the network.

On these servers, I'm pushing only 2 routes into the IS-IS domain.

Mark.