[j-nsp] VPLS tunnel LSP establishment

[Monika M]

I agree with you that router ID configuration is not mandatory to be a
routable address as per theory. But Don't many vendors mandate using
Loopback address when it comes to RSVP-TE, static LSP etc....?
           Another point: I beleive recursive lookup is no longer required
for L2VPN NLRI next hop processing as we need to only find out a tunnel LSP
to the nexthop (Provider edge device for which the PW is  established) and
not the immediate directly connected nexthop.

Regards,
Monika


On 8/8/07, Rafał Szarecki <rszarecki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One comment. ROUTER ID can be, in theory, 4 bytes whch are NOT adress of
> any interface. Sure best practice and common approche is to have
> RID==loopback IP. But this is not mandatory.
>
> In this generalized case LSP should be established to routable adress.
> Otherwise BGP will noyt be able to make recursive lookup, as RID do not
> necesery exist in routing table.
>
> 2007/8/2, Erdem Sener <erdems at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Monika,
> >
> > I would say establishing neighborships, tunnels etc. with router
> > id's/loopbacks is generally a good idea, unless you need to otherwise
> > for a very good reason.
> >
> > Doing so should not only let you easily use alternate paths between
> > your P/PE routers as mentioned before but also keep 'clean'
> > configurations.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Erdem
> >
> > On 8/2/07, Monika M <monika.vpls at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the response.
> > > In this case, should I configure the BGP peer address (for l2vpn
> > signaling)
> > > also as loopback address?
> > > (Since tunnel LSP association will be based on the BGP discovered peer
> >
> > > address. Not sure whether tunnel LSP will be searched for the nexthop
> > field
> > > in the L2VPN NLRI or BGP identifier in the packet.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Monika
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/2/07, Tomasz Szewczyk < tomeks at man.poznan.pl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion it is much better to use router ID (loopback). You can
> > > > experience some problems when using interface address if it goes
> > down. I
> > > > assume you have redundant connections/paths between PE1 and PE2.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Tomek
> > > >
> > > > Monika M pisze:
> > > > > site1---PE1 ----- P1-----------P2-----------(x)-PE2----site2
> > > > >
> > > > > I have BGP peering between PE1-PE2 for having L2VPN service.
> > > > > L2VPN configuration steps mandate configuration of tunnel LSP
> > > > establishment.
> > > > > Should I have an LSP for the PE2's interface address x or PE2's
> > router
> > > > ID.
> > > > >
> > > > > TIA
> > > > > Monika
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tomasz Szewczyk
> > > > Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center
> > > > e-mail: tomeks at man.poznan.pl
> > > >
> > > > fax: +48 61 8525954
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rafał Szarecki JNCIE-M/T, JNCIP-E
> +48602418971