[j-nsp] VPLS tunnel LSP establishment

[Rafał Szarecki]

Type error :

instead of "This is curent best practice, but mandatory."
place "This is curent best practice, but NOT mandatory setup."

2007/8/9, Rafał Szarecki <rszarecki at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> 2007/8/8, Monika M <monika.vpls at gmail.com>:
> >
> > 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....?
> >
>
>
> This is curent best practice, but mandatory.
>
>            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.
> >
>
> Indeed. However.
> With BGP signaling, BGP Next-Hop is IP address of anouncing PE. Then BGH
> has to make lookup for this  IP adres to identyfy LSP.  Thus BGP Next-Hop
> has to be an adress with assigned LSP. Consequently to have LSP assigned to
> adress route, this adress need to be routable.
>
> Ok. There is potential exception. It is possible to instal route to LSP
> (install comand). Of course installed adress can be non-existing on remote
> PE. IMHO is like static routing, so this is routable address.
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rafał Szarecki JNCIE-M/T, JNCIP-E
> +48602418971
>



-- 
Rafał Szarecki JNCIE-M/T, JNCIP-E
+48602418971