Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP
Hi Acee, On 01/03/18 17:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Dirk, My memory has faded somewhat on Forwarding Adjacency (FA) implementation. However, since basic MPLS LSPs are unidirectional, doesn’t the SPF two-way check have to be disabled anyway? If so, the Remote Interface ID doesn’t matter. no, you have to advertise FA from both sides so that TWC passes. thanks, Peter Thanks, Acee *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <dirk.goeth...@nokia.com> *Date: *Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 11:06 AM *To: *"lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> *Subject: *[Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP Hi, In OSPFv2 (and ISIS), we can add (RSVP) tunnels to the topology by adding them as a unnumbered link in the router lsa. In OSPFv3, we can only add a link to the router-lsa if the neighbor interface ID is known. So it looks like we can only add a tunnel to the OSPFv3 topology, if we first exchanging hello packets over the tunnel. Is that correct? As this is not needed in the other IGPs, do we have other possibilities? Thx, Dirk ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP
Hi, I think that problem here is that two LSPs are two independent unidirectional links, rather than one bidirectional. Moreover, LSPs in two directions are not pairs (some two LSPs are not associated to each other), and amount of LSPs in each direction is not necessary the same. I could assume that some router uses Interface IDs for two-way check, but it is not so straightforward when we have deal with FAs. Acee, two-way check could be disabled on the router that is owner of FA, but how other routers will distinguish regular P2P from FA? Thank you. Best regards, Alexander Okonnikov 1 марта 2018 г., 19:37 +0300, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>, писал: > Hi Dirk, > > My memory has faded somewhat on Forwarding Adjacency (FA) implementation. > However, since basic MPLS LSPs are unidirectional, doesn’t the SPF two-way > check have to be disabled anyway? If so, the Remote Interface ID doesn’t > matter. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - > BE/Antwerp)" <dirk.goeth...@nokia.com> > Date: Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 11:06 AM > To: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> > Subject: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP > > Hi, > In OSPFv2 (and ISIS), we can add (RSVP) tunnels to the topology > by adding them as a unnumbered link in the router lsa. > In OSPFv3, we can only add a link to the router-lsa if the neighbor > interface ID is known. > So it looks like we can only add a tunnel to the OSPFv3 topology, > if we first exchanging hello packets over the tunnel. > Is that correct? > As this is not needed in the other IGPs, do > we have other possibilities? > Thx, > Dirk > > > > ___ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP
Hi Dirk, My memory has faded somewhat on Forwarding Adjacency (FA) implementation. However, since basic MPLS LSPs are unidirectional, doesn’t the SPF two-way check have to be disabled anyway? If so, the Remote Interface ID doesn’t matter. Thanks, Acee From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <dirk.goeth...@nokia.com> Date: Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 11:06 AM To: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP Hi, In OSPFv2 (and ISIS), we can add (RSVP) tunnels to the topology by adding them as a unnumbered link in the router lsa. In OSPFv3, we can only add a link to the router-lsa if the neighbor interface ID is known. So it looks like we can only add a tunnel to the OSPFv3 topology, if we first exchanging hello packets over the tunnel. Is that correct? As this is not needed in the other IGPs, do we have other possibilities? Thx, Dirk ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP
Peter, Indeed. Thx, Dirk Outlook voor Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> downloaden From: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 5:21:13 PM To: Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP Hi Dirk, On 01/03/18 17:05 , Dirk Goethals wrote: > Hi, > In OSPFv2 (and ISIS), we can add (RSVP) tunnels to the topology > by adding them as a unnumbered link in the router lsa. > In OSPFv3, we can only add a link to the router-lsa if the neighbor > interface ID is known. > So it looks like we can only add a tunnel to the OSPFv3 topology, > if we first exchanging hello packets over the tunnel. > Is that correct? > As this is not needed in the other IGPs, do > we have other possibilities? well, one can manually configure the local/remote interface IDs to match on both sides and advertise as such. thanks, Peter > Thx, > Dirk > > > > > ___ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP
Hi Dirk, On 01/03/18 17:05 , Dirk Goethals wrote: Hi, In OSPFv2 (and ISIS), we can add (RSVP) tunnels to the topology by adding them as a unnumbered link in the router lsa. In OSPFv3, we can only add a link to the router-lsa if the neighbor interface ID is known. So it looks like we can only add a tunnel to the OSPFv3 topology, if we first exchanging hello packets over the tunnel. Is that correct? As this is not needed in the other IGPs, do we have other possibilities? well, one can manually configure the local/remote interface IDs to match on both sides and advertise as such. thanks, Peter Thx, Dirk ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
[Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP
Hi, In OSPFv2 (and ISIS), we can add (RSVP) tunnels to the topology by adding them as a unnumbered link in the router lsa. In OSPFv3, we can only add a link to the router-lsa if the neighbor interface ID is known. So it looks like we can only add a tunnel to the OSPFv3 topology, if we first exchanging hello packets over the tunnel. Is that correct? As this is not needed in the other IGPs, do we have other possibilities? Thx, Dirk ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
