On (2008-08-14 09:41 +0200), Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote: > Well, I think this is the catch: In independent control mode, LDP does not > "re-advertise" something like a distance/path-vector routing protocol does, > it advertises its local bindings. So to implement a "re-advertise" behaviour, > one would need to change the local binding behaviour to "only allocate (and > advertise) a label for a remotely-learned IGP prefix x/y if you already > received a remote LDP binding for this prefix or if you're the egress LSR for > this FEC".. This is ordered control, something IOS only implements for > cell-mode MPLS (i.e. ATM).
> > End result would be, that you'd only have loop0̈́s in each MPLS > > spakers LIBs, without any ACL/prefix-list maintenance overhead. > > agreed. But I still see challenges getting this right in independent control > mode.. Am I missing something? Perhaps I mistook that it would be easier than in reality it is, to determine this information from LIB. I assumed that creating bindings perfectly normally for data received over LDP session is no-problem and only thing that needs to change, is that in first place, you don't locally add anything to your bindings, except your Loop0. > I guess so, filtering label allocation is more "natural" and efficient than > filtering the advertisement for this very common case.. Yes (more natural than ACL filtering what you advertise out). -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
