[j-nsp] Juniper MPLS VPN using PE-P and P-PE LSPs !

[vaibhava varma]

HI Mark
Thanks a lot for your response..I have everything working fine withLDP
without any issues..I just wanted to deploy RSVP-TE for fasterfailover
in the backbone..And there I got stuck up with the full-meshof TE
among PEs or using Broken Static LSPs between PE-P and P-PE..
Thanks for sharing the rib-import methodology to get rid of
staticroutes for inet.3 resolution for BGP-Next Hops..
Just a clarification on the "ldp-tunneling" part..Do I need to
applythis at all the PE/P routers to run LDP over broken LSPs between
PEs..Is there a provision in Junos without using LDP Tunneling to
passtraffic between PEs when using broken LSPs ?
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2011 06:22:18 PM vaibhava varma
> wrote:
>
>> I am working on a requirement to enable the MPLS Backbone
>> with MPLS TE in such a way that I have LSPs running from
>> PE-P routers and P-PE routers to avoid full mesh of
>> LSPs.
>
> So you mean H-LSP's (RFC's 4206, 6107)
>
>> I can not make it working with RSVP as I think I need to
>> enable LDP on the RSVP TE Tunnel but unable to find a
>> way to do so..
>
> You mean LDPoRSVP (LDP Tunneling, in Juniper speak):
>
> tinka at lab# show groups mpls-group
> protocols {
>    mpls {
>        icmp-tunneling;
>        label-switched-path <*> {
>            ldp-tunneling;
>            least-fill;
>            node-link-protection;
>            adaptive;
>        }
>        interface <xe-*>;
>        interface <ge-*>;
>        interface <ae*>;
>    }
> }
>
> {master}[edit]
> tinka at lab#
>
>
> You're interested in the 'ldp-tunneling' command as noted
> above.
>
>> The MPLS Backbone has separate dedicated
>> VPNv4 RRs . On RRs and PEs I have used a Discard Default
>> Route under inet.3 which helps to reflect the vpnv4
>> routes from RR and accept them on PEs.
>
> Why don't you consider the installation of the IGP routes
> toward the BGP next-hops into 'inet.3' and 'inet6.3'
> instead? We do the same (as we don't run MPLS on our
> dedicated route reflectors) as below (you're interested in
> the 'rib-group' piece mostly):
>
> tinka at lab# show groups isis-group
> protocols {
>    isis {
>        lsp-lifetime 65535;
>        ignore-attached-bit;
>        rib-group inet IGP-RIB;
>        topologies ipv6-unicast;
>        overload;
>        level 1 disable;
>        level 2 {
>            authentication-key "<hidden>"; ## SECRET-DATA
>            authentication-type md5;
>            wide-metrics-only;
>        }
>        interface lo0.0 {
>            passive;
>        }
>        interface <ge-*>;
>    }
> }
>
> {master}[edit]
> tinka at lab#
>
>
> tinka at lab# show routing-options rib-groups
> IGP-RIB {
>    import-rib [ inet.0 inet.3 inet6.3 ];
> }
>
> {master}[edit]
> tinka at lab#
>
>
> That should sort you out on the route reflectors so you
> don't have to hassle with static default routes.
>
>> Now how can I solve the issue of passing MPLS VPN Traffic
>> across broken LSPs in the backbone..
>
> Just a question - have you not considered just running LDP,
> or RSVP-TE a must?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.



-- 
Regards
Vaibhava Varma