I see that makes sense. I will give it a shot. thanks for your help. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> because this is how LDP works in frame-based MPLS networks. Every LDP > speakers independently allocates and distributes labels, so the P node > also allocates a label for the 150.0.0.0/24 and advertises it to PE2, no > matter if the upstream neighbor (PE1) sent one or not.. > > oli > > Sergio D. <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 > 4:39 PM: > > > 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]>> > > > > > > > > > > <mailto:[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 > -- Sergio _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
