Type error : instead of "This is curent best practice, but mandatory." place "This is curent best practice, but NOT mandatory setup."
2007/8/9, Rafał Szarecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > 2007/8/8, Monika M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I agree with you that router ID configuration is not mandatory to be a > > routable address as per theory. But Don't many vendors mandate using > > Loopback address when it comes to RSVP-TE, static LSP etc....? > > > > > This is curent best practice, but mandatory. > > Another point: I beleive recursive lookup is no longer required > > for L2VPN NLRI next hop processing as we need to only find out a tunnel LSP > > to the nexthop (Provider edge device for which the PW is established) and > > not the immediate directly connected nexthop. > > > > Indeed. However. > With BGP signaling, BGP Next-Hop is IP address of anouncing PE. Then BGH > has to make lookup for this IP adres to identyfy LSP. Thus BGP Next-Hop > has to be an adress with assigned LSP. Consequently to have LSP assigned to > adress route, this adress need to be routable. > > Ok. There is potential exception. It is possible to instal route to LSP > (install comand). Of course installed adress can be non-existing on remote > PE. IMHO is like static routing, so this is routable address. > > Regards, > > Monika > > > > > > On 8/8/07, Rafał Szarecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > One comment. ROUTER ID can be, in theory, 4 bytes whch are NOT adress > > > of any interface. Sure best practice and common approche is to have > > > RID==loopback IP. But this is not mandatory. > > > > > > In this generalized case LSP should be established to routable adress. > > > Otherwise BGP will noyt be able to make recursive lookup, as RID do not > > > necesery exist in routing table. > > > > > > 2007/8/2, Erdem Sener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > Monika, > > > > > > > > I would say establishing neighborships, tunnels etc. with router > > > > id's/loopbacks is generally a good idea, unless you need to > > > > otherwise > > > > for a very good reason. > > > > > > > > Doing so should not only let you easily use alternate paths between > > > > your P/PE routers as mentioned before but also keep 'clean' > > > > configurations. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Erdem > > > > > > > > On 8/2/07, Monika M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the response. > > > > > In this case, should I configure the BGP peer address (for l2vpn > > > > signaling) > > > > > also as loopback address? > > > > > (Since tunnel LSP association will be based on the BGP discovered > > > > peer > > > > > address. Not sure whether tunnel LSP will be searched for the > > > > nexthop field > > > > > in the L2VPN NLRI or BGP identifier in the packet. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Monika > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/2/07, Tomasz Szewczyk < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion it is much better to use router ID (loopback). You > > > > can > > > > > > experience some problems when using interface address if it goes > > > > down. I > > > > > > assume you have redundant connections/paths between PE1 and PE2. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomek > > > > > > > > > > > > Monika M pisze: > > > > > > > site1---PE1 ----- P1-----------P2-----------(x)-PE2----site2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have BGP peering between PE1-PE2 for having L2VPN service. > > > > > > > L2VPN configuration steps mandate configuration of tunnel LSP > > > > > > establishment. > > > > > > > Should I have an LSP for the PE2's interface address x or > > > > PE2's router > > > > > > ID. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > Monika > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Tomasz Szewczyk > > > > > > Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center > > > > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > fax: +48 61 8525954 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Rafał Szarecki JNCIE-M/T, JNCIP-E > > > +48602418971 > > > > > > > > > -- > Rafał Szarecki JNCIE-M/T, JNCIP-E > +48602418971 > -- Rafał Szarecki JNCIE-M/T, JNCIP-E +48602418971 _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
