Sergio,
your config looks fine, so I don't know what's happening. Can you show a
"show mpls ldp bindings 10.0.0.1 32" on the LDP neighbor(s) or a "show
mpls forwarding interface <foo>" where <foo> is the neighbor's interface
to PE1?
No need to specify a "to <acl>" to select which neighbors you want to
advertise this to in your case.
oli
Sergio D. <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Monday, August 11, 2008
4:52 PM:
> thanks for the response.
> I am using 12.3(22) and "no mpls ldp advertise-labels" turns into "no
> tag-switching advertise-tags" which I already have.
> Oliver,
> thanks for clearing up the assignment of the label, I guess thats
> fine as long as it doesn't get advertised which is what I am trying
> to avoid. I did try it without the deny at the end, and the result
> was the same.
> Do I need an access-list listing my peers and apply that?
>
> TIA
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Paolo Lucente <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
>
>
> Hi Sergio,
>
> to add to what Oliver said that you maybe want to make sure
> you have in the configuration a "no mpls ldp advertise-labels"
> line. Without that, even if you configure a filter (which is
> successfully matched as you shown), labels would still be
> announced to adjacent LDP peers.
>
> Don't know if this could be your case; i did have to make use
> out of it to verify label filtering working on a 12.2SR while
> trying to minimize exposure of our labels in an "Inter-AS" L2
> MPLS VPN scenario.
>
>
> no mpls ldp advertise-labels
>
> mpls ldp advertise-labels for LDP-DEST to LDP-PEER
> [ ... ]
> mpls label protocol ldp
> !
> interface Loopback0
> ip address 192.168.100.4 255.255.255.255
> !
> ip access-list standard LDP-DEST
> permit 192.168.100.4
> ip access-list standard LDP-PEER
> permit 192.168.100.1
> !
>
> Cheers,
> Paolo
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 09:50:34PM -0600, Sergio D. wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I am trying to filter LDP label bindings to only advertise my
> loopback > address(for vpnv4 traffic) but I am unsure as to what
the
> requirements are. > Here is what I have:
> > PE1#show ip route connected | in ^C
> > C 1.1.1.0 is directly connected, Serial1/0
> > C 10.0.0.1 is directly connected, Loopback0
> > C 150.0.0.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1
> >
> > PE1#sh run | in tag
> > no tag-switching advertise-tags
> > tag-switching advertise-tags for ldp-filter
> >
> > PE1#show access-lists ldp-filter
> > Standard IP access list ldp-filter
> > 10 permit 10.0.0.0, wildcard bits 0.0.0.255 (6 matches)
> > 999 deny any (7 matches)
> >
> > matches?
> >
> > but still generates a binding for all my connected interfaces:
> >
> > PE1#show mpls ldp bindings 150.0.0.0 24
> > tib entry: 150.0.0.0/24, rev 2
> > local binding: tag: imp-null
> > remote binding: tsr: 25.25.25.25:0, tag: 18
> > PE1#
> >
> > And the other side tags it with a label:
> >
> > PE2#traceroute 150.0.0.1
> >
> > Type escape sequence to abort.
> > Tracing the route to 150.0.0.1
> >
> > 1 1.1.1.5 [MPLS: Label 18 Exp 0] 16 msec 52 msec 24 msec
> > 2 1.1.1.1 24 msec 52 msec *
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > --
> > Sergio Danelli
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sergio Danelli
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
