The MPLS-OPS Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Re: Re: IGP-LDP interaction
In order to advertise a label received for a particular prefix, a router has to have a route in its IGP that is an *exact* match for the prefix. Here's a question: if a router has a route that is less specific than the prefix in the LDP mapping, but still matches, could it advertise the LDP mapping in that case? So basically doing a longest match instead of an exact match? I understand that most routers need the exact match today, is this because of implementation or is it the standard dictating it? > > From: Eric Osborne <eosborne@cisco.com> > Date: 2004/01/22 Thu AM 07:05:19 EST > To: Harpreet Singh <harpreet_singh_2000@yahoo.com> > CC: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com > Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: IGP-LDP interaction > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:32:15AM -0800, Harpreet Singh wrote: > > > > Can anyone tell me/ refer me to some good pointers on > > how OSPF interacts with LDP? > > They don't really interact, they're two different protocols. > > > Specifically in JUNOS, the rouyter does not distribute labels to its > > LDP neighbors for prefixes that it odes not have in its IGP although > > it recieved a downstream label for it from another neighbor. Is > > there some standard for this? > > IOS works the same way. The idea with LDP (in non-Martini mode, > anyways) is that it distributes labels for routes it has in its IGP > routing table. LDP is not a routing protocol, and does not give out > reachability information that routing does not also give out. > > > > eric > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > HS 1 ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
|
|