"well, an LSR needs to allocate labels also for other nodes' loopbacks, so this alone will not be enough ;-)"
Could it not just based is allocation of labels based on having it in the LFIB already? Why does the LSR need to allocate a label for all the learned prefixes? Juniper only binds the loopback and all the LSRs only allocate labels for that from other neighbors, maybe it just looks for /32 prefixes. Is that what Label distribution control mode: ordered vs. Label distribution control mode: independent is? thanks Message: 3 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:29:03 +0200 From: "Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] filter LDP bindings To: "Saku Ytti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>, < [email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Saku Ytti <> wrote on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:18 PM: > On (2008-08-11 07:41 +0200), Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote: > >> BTW: the LDP filter only prevents advertisement of the binding, it >> doesn't prevent the LSR from assigning a label (the imp-null in your >> example). > > I think we had this discussion some years ago, but it would be nice, > instead of ACLs to be able to say 'no mpls ldp label; mpls ldp label > loop0' or so, to generate label only for loop0. well, an LSR needs to allocate labels also for other nodes' loopbacks, so this alone will not be enough ;-) However, IOS now has a label allocation filter (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/configuration/guide/mp_ldp_all oc_filter.html<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/configuration/guide/mp_ldp_alloc_filter.html>) having a "allocate global host-routes" shorthand to only allocate labels for /32s (or uses a prefix-list for more granular control).. oli -- Sergio _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
