Yes there is a "P" router in the middle. Why would the middle router be getting a binding if I am filtering from the source?
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sergio, > > is PE2 really adjacent to PE1? I don't think it is, there must be some > LDP speaker in the middle. If PE2 was adjacent to PE1, the outgoing > label for 150.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.0.1/32 would be imp-null (aka "pop > label" as those networks are directly connected on PE1), not 18 or 20, > as you've indicated below. > I would assume it is 25.25.25.25, as this LDP neighbor sends > advertisements to both PE1 and PE2. > > As every speaker allocates labels independently, you need to filter the > LDP advertisements on *all* LDP speakers. > > oli > > Sergio D. <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Monday, August 11, 2008 > 7:24 PM: > > > Oli, > > from a neighbor a hop away: > > > > PE2#show mpls ldp bindings 10.0.0.1 32 > > tib entry: 10.0.0.1/32, rev 10 > > local binding: tag: 17 > > remote binding: tsr: 25.25.25.25:0, tag: 20 > > PE2# > > > > prefix I want to filter: > > > > PE2#show mpls forwarding-table 150.0.0.1 > > Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop > > tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface > > 19 18 150.0.0.0/24 0 Se1/0 point2point > > > > thanks, > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > 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] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[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 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sergio > -- Sergio _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
