The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Christopher Poh <tvpoh@essex.ac.uk>]

Robert,

>> >What LSP you have in mind ? LDP or TE ? If TE as long as those dst are
>> >reachable sure no problem. As far as LDP yes the same. After all you can
>> >label the default route as well :). Redistributing but only specifics
>> >could be yet another way but I am not sure what application such a LSP
>> >would be used for.
>> 
>> If it were to distribute only specific routes, is it true that the LSPs are naturally established through control driven triggered by IGP routing protocol. 
>
>Yes and I think that would be a way to do it ... but again I am still
>missing the bigger picture here on the overall application.

Firstly, sorry to keep this thread long. Hope it doesn't annoy anyone. Here is the bigger picture of my question. I am interested in knowing how much we can 
avoid L3 processing when delivering packets from a source to destination(s). Since the Internet is built-up from a number of domains, there will be many (actual) 
routes that are missing from the view of a router in a domain. Due to this, all packets destined to certain exterior destinations will end up at the route aggregator 
point, which is most probably an AS border router, where L3 processing needs to be done to perform further labelling to packets. This would add heavy IP 
address lookup processing to an already loaded AS border router. Having said that, I am wondering whether we can allow an AS border router seletively 
advertises its LSPs for active routes to leverage the L3 processing.

Any comments?

-Chris.


-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml