Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: nsp: juniper

redistributing label between rsvp and ldp

 

 

nsp juniper RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


good1 at live

Apr 28, 2012, 9:45 PM

Post #1 of 8 (1761 views)
Permalink
redistributing label between rsvp and ldp

hi,
I was just testing out to swap labels between two different signaling protocols (ldp and rsvp). lets say we have two different network, one is running ldp and the other one is running rsvp (same AS, so no inter-as options).
ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce
so pe1 - p1 - p2 -p3 are running rsvp and p4-pe2 are running ldp, and edge ce's are using l3vpn. what are the options to have a labeled path from pe2 to pe1 (considering that pe1 is not going to run ldp protocol, and pe2 can't use rsvp so ldp tunneling is not an option here).
thanks in advance for your comments.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


good1 at live

Apr 28, 2012, 11:52 PM

Post #2 of 8 (1689 views)
Permalink
Re: redistributing label between rsvp and ldp [In reply to]

hi -
yeah p3 and p4 support both ldp and rsvp, but pe1 can only run rsvp and pe 2 can only run ldp.

ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce
thanks
Andrew

> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:04:06 +0800
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] redistributing label between rsvp and ldp
> From: diogo.montagner [at] gmail
> To: good1 [at] live
>
> Does p3 and p4 support both LDP and RSVP ?
>
> ./diogo -montagner
> JNCIE-M 0x41A
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Uzi Be <good1 [at] live> wrote:
> >
> > hi,
> > I was just testing out to swap labels between two different signaling protocols (ldp and rsvp). lets say we have two different network, one is running ldp and the other one is running rsvp (same AS, so no inter-as options).
> > ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce
> > so pe1 - p1 - p2 -p3 are running rsvp and p4-pe2 are running ldp, and edge ce's are using l3vpn. what are the options to have a labeled path from pe2 to pe1 (considering that pe1 is not going to run ldp protocol, and pe2 can't use rsvp so ldp tunneling is not an option here).
> > thanks in advance for your comments.
> > Andrew
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


ivanov.ivan at gmail

Apr 29, 2012, 11:34 AM

Post #3 of 8 (1695 views)
Permalink
Re: redistributing label between rsvp and ldp [In reply to]

Hi Andrew,

You should consider using 'labeld-BGP'. Look at this example:

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.1/topics/example/vpn-interprovider-vpn-example-multihop-mp-ebgp-with-p-routers.html

HTH,

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 09:52, Uzi Be <good1 [at] live> wrote:

>
> hi -
> yeah p3 and p4 support both ldp and rsvp, but pe1 can only run rsvp and pe
> 2 can only run ldp.
>
> ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce
> thanks
> Andrew
>
> > Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:04:06 +0800
> > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] redistributing label between rsvp and ldp
> > From: diogo.montagner [at] gmail
> > To: good1 [at] live
> >
> > Does p3 and p4 support both LDP and RSVP ?
> >
> > ./diogo -montagner
> > JNCIE-M 0x41A
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Uzi Be <good1 [at] live> wrote:
> > >
> > > hi,
> > > I was just testing out to swap labels between two different signaling
> protocols (ldp and rsvp). lets say we have two different network, one is
> running ldp and the other one is running rsvp (same AS, so no inter-as
> options).
> > > ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce
> > > so pe1 - p1 - p2 -p3 are running rsvp and p4-pe2 are running ldp, and
> edge ce's are using l3vpn. what are the options to have a labeled path from
> pe2 to pe1 (considering that pe1 is not going to run ldp protocol, and pe2
> can't use rsvp so ldp tunneling is not an option here).
> > > thanks in advance for your comments.
> > > Andrew
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>



--
Best Regards!

Ivan Ivanov
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


keegan.holley at sungard

Apr 29, 2012, 3:56 PM

Post #4 of 8 (1687 views)
Permalink
Re: redistributing label between rsvp and ldp [In reply to]

Labels aren't like routes per se. They only point to a next hop and not a
destination so you don't have to exchange labels between two routing
protocols in the same way you would routes. You only have to configure the
routers at the edge of each topology so that it runs both protocols. That
being said RSVP adds a caveat. If you try to form a RSVP LSP that
traverses a router that isn't running RSVP it will either fail to form or
re-route.

LDP does not have this constraint and just advertises labels to directly
connected peers. To bridge between the two protocols I would configure p3
(and every router at the edge of your RSVP domain) as a PE running both LDP
and RSVP. You can terminate the RSVP LSP's there. Since it's a PE it
should be able to match the L3VPN information advertised by pe2 via BGP
with the LDP labels it's advertising.

You could also turn on LDP on all of your routers. Any IP that doesn't
have an RSVP next hop failover to LDP and vise versa. This is easier to
manage since it will be obvious which paths use LDP and which ones use
RSVP. The ultimate solution is probably to run only one label protocol
though.



2012/4/29 Uzi Be <good1 [at] live>

>
> hi,
> I was just testing out to swap labels between two different signaling
> protocols (ldp and rsvp). lets say we have two different network, one is
> running ldp and the other one is running rsvp (same AS, so no inter-as
> options).
> ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce
> so pe1 - p1 - p2 -p3 are running rsvp and p4-pe2 are running ldp, and edge
> ce's are using l3vpn. what are the options to have a labeled path from pe2
> to pe1 (considering that pe1 is not going to run ldp protocol, and pe2
> can't use rsvp so ldp tunneling is not an option here).
> thanks in advance for your comments.
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


good1 at live

Apr 29, 2012, 9:34 PM

Post #5 of 8 (1690 views)
Permalink
Re: redistributing label between rsvp and ldp [In reply to]

Hi Keegan,
Thanks for your reply and explaining all the caveats of mpls signaling protocols. First of all, I am not gonna use this kind of setup in real environment. I am doing all of this in order to learn how to integrate two different labeling protocols in various circumstances.
I don't wana run same signaling protocol on the PEs, so PE1 will run LDP and PE2 will run RSVP. Since PE2 is not gonna run LDP at all, so I can't use ldp-tunneling here either. I could have use bgp labeled on top of ldp and rsvp but was wondering if there are any other workarounds.
Second, will it work for 6pe if you use bpg labeled mpls signaled path as an next-hop for 6pe.
ThanksAndrew

From: keegan.holley [at] sungard
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:56:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] redistributing label between rsvp and ldp
To: good1 [at] live
CC: juniper-nsp [at] puck

Labels aren't like routes per se. They only point to a next hop and not a destination so you don't have to exchange labels between two routing protocols in the same way you would routes. You only have to configure the routers at the edge of each topology so that it runs both protocols. That being said RSVP adds a caveat. If you try to form a RSVP LSP that traverses a router that isn't running RSVP it will either fail to form or re-route.



LDP does not have this constraint and just advertises labels to directly connected peers. To bridge between the two protocols I would configure p3 (and every router at the edge of your RSVP domain) as a PE running both LDP and RSVP. You can terminate the RSVP LSP's there. Since it's a PE it should be able to match the L3VPN information advertised by pe2 via BGP with the LDP labels it's advertising.



You could also turn on LDP on all of your routers. Any IP that doesn't have an RSVP next hop failover to LDP and vise versa. This is easier to manage since it will be obvious which paths use LDP and which ones use RSVP. The ultimate solution is probably to run only one label protocol though.





2012/4/29 Uzi Be <good1 [at] live>




hi,

I was just testing out to swap labels between two different signaling protocols (ldp and rsvp). lets say we have two different network, one is running ldp and the other one is running rsvp (same AS, so no inter-as options).



ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce

so pe1 - p1 - p2 -p3 are running rsvp and p4-pe2 are running ldp, and edge ce's are using l3vpn. what are the options to have a labeled path from pe2 to pe1 (considering that pe1 is not going to run ldp protocol, and pe2 can't use rsvp so ldp tunneling is not an option here).



thanks in advance for your comments.

Andrew

_______________________________________________

juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck

https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp





_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


keegan.holley at sungard

Apr 30, 2012, 7:00 AM

Post #6 of 8 (1727 views)
Permalink
Re: redistributing label between rsvp and ldp [In reply to]

I assumed you were exploring the configuration of the signaling protocols.
My point was that I can't think of a situation (not saying that one doesn't
exist) where I would run both protocols on purpose. At most it would happen
during a cutover from one to the other. I can't think of many things one
protocol does that the other doesn't that are important enough to keep both
around permanently.

Also, I thought BGP signaling still depended on RSVP or LDP to advertise
the outer labels. I would assume this is the case for any method that uses
BGP signalling because there is no way to map a BGP advertisement to a
particular interface and labels are only locally significant. I'm not an
expert though.


I haven't done much research either but here's an excerpt from the RFC I
found:


2. Transport IPv6 packets from the ingress 6PE router to the egress
6PE router over IPv4-signaled LSPs:

The ingress 6PE router MUST forward IPv6 data over the IPv4-
signaled LSP towards the egress 6PE router identified by the IPv4
address advertised in the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address of the BGP Next
Hop for the corresponding IPv6 prefix.


3. Transport over IPv4-signaled LSPs and IPv6 Label Binding

In this approach, the IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses allow a 6PE router
that has to forward an IPv6 packet to automatically determine the
IPv4-signaled LSP to use for a particular IPv6 destination by looking
at the MP-BGP routing information.

The IPv4-signaled LSPs can be established using any existing
technique for label setup [RFC3031] (LDP, RSVP-TE, etc.).

To ensure interoperability among systems that implement the 6PE
approach described in this document, all such systems MUST support
tunneling using IPv4-signaled MPLS LSPs established by LDP [RFC3036].

When tunneling IPv6 packets over the IPv4 MPLS backbone, rather than
successively prepend an IPv4 header and then perform label imposition
When tunneling IPv6 packets over the IPv4 MPLS backbone, rather than
successively prepend an IPv4 header and then perform label imposition
based on the IPv4 header, the ingress 6PE Router MUST directly
perform label imposition of the IPv6 header without prepending any
IPv4 header. The (outer) label imposed MUST correspond to the IPv4-
signaled LSP starting on the ingress 6PE Router and ending on the
egress 6PE Router.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4798.txt


2012/4/30 Uzi Be <good1 [at] live>

> Hi Keegan,
>
> Thanks for your reply and explaining all the caveats of mpls signaling
> protocols. First of all, I am not gonna use this kind of setup in
> real environment. I am doing all of this in order to learn how to integrate
> two different labeling protocols in various circumstances.
>
> I don't wana run same signaling protocol on the PEs, so PE1 will run LDP
> and PE2 will run RSVP. Since PE2 is not gonna run LDP at all, so I can't
> use ldp-tunneling here either. I could have use bgp labeled on top of ldp
> and rsvp but was wondering if there are any other workarounds.
>
> Second, will it work for 6pe if you use bpg labeled mpls signaled path as
> an next-hop for 6pe.
>
> Thanks
> Andrew
>
> ------------------------------
> From: keegan.holley [at] sungard
> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:56:53 -0400
>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] redistributing label between rsvp and ldp
> To: good1 [at] live
> CC: juniper-nsp [at] puck
>
>
> Labels aren't like routes per se. They only point to a next hop and not a
> destination so you don't have to exchange labels between two routing
> protocols in the same way you would routes. You only have to configure the
> routers at the edge of each topology so that it runs both protocols. That
> being said RSVP adds a caveat. If you try to form a RSVP LSP that
> traverses a router that isn't running RSVP it will either fail to form or
> re-route.
>
> LDP does not have this constraint and just advertises labels to directly
> connected peers. To bridge between the two protocols I would configure p3
> (and every router at the edge of your RSVP domain) as a PE running both LDP
> and RSVP. You can terminate the RSVP LSP's there. Since it's a PE it
> should be able to match the L3VPN information advertised by pe2 via BGP
> with the LDP labels it's advertising.
>
> You could also turn on LDP on all of your routers. Any IP that doesn't
> have an RSVP next hop failover to LDP and vise versa. This is easier to
> manage since it will be obvious which paths use LDP and which ones use
> RSVP. The ultimate solution is probably to run only one label protocol
> though.
>
>
>
> 2012/4/29 Uzi Be <good1 [at] live>
>
>
> hi,
> I was just testing out to swap labels between two different signaling
> protocols (ldp and rsvp). lets say we have two different network, one is
> running ldp and the other one is running rsvp (same AS, so no inter-as
> options).
> ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce
> so pe1 - p1 - p2 -p3 are running rsvp and p4-pe2 are running ldp, and edge
> ce's are using l3vpn. what are the options to have a labeled path from pe2
> to pe1 (considering that pe1 is not going to run ldp protocol, and pe2
> can't use rsvp so ldp tunneling is not an option here).
> thanks in advance for your comments.
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


philxor at gmail

Apr 30, 2012, 7:12 AM

Post #7 of 8 (1713 views)
Permalink
Re: redistributing label between rsvp and ldp [In reply to]

I'm not aware of a feature to "stitch" together an LDP LSP to an RSVP LSP
on a mid-point node, to the best of my knowledge. The P nodes switch
traffic based on the ingress label, when the RSVP tail end node pops the
last label allocated for the RSVP LSP it will expect whatever traffic it
is carrying to terminate locally. If you are using a feature like
LDPoRSVP the RSVP LSP acts as a virtual interface so to speak which
participates in LDP so it knows where to send the traffic based on the
second LDP label after popping the RSVP label. Your best bet is to use
RFC3107 labeled BGP but to make that work you'll have to use BGP between
the boundary P nodes and the PE routers. Each PE will learn the address
for the other PE via labeled BGP with the next-hop set to the boundary
node and then each segment will use RSVP or LDP respectively to get
between the boundary nodes to the PE and vice versa.

There are features, at least with some vendors, to stitch together BGP to
LDP and vice versa since nodes like PE1/PE2 may not support labeled BGP,
but the boundary router doing the stitching needs to keep track of that.

Easier to just run one protocol. :)

Phil

On 4/29/12 2:52 AM, "Uzi Be" <good1 [at] live> wrote:

>
>hi -
>yeah p3 and p4 support both ldp and rsvp, but pe1 can only run rsvp and
>pe 2 can only run ldp.
>
>ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce
>thanks
>Andrew
>
>> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:04:06 +0800
>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] redistributing label between rsvp and ldp
>> From: diogo.montagner [at] gmail
>> To: good1 [at] live
>>
>> Does p3 and p4 support both LDP and RSVP ?
>>
>> ./diogo -montagner
>> JNCIE-M 0x41A
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Uzi Be <good1 [at] live> wrote:
>> >
>> > hi,
>> > I was just testing out to swap labels between two different signaling
>>protocols (ldp and rsvp). lets say we have two different network, one is
>>running ldp and the other one is running rsvp (same AS, so no inter-as
>>options).
>> > ce - pe1 - p1 - p2 - p3 -p4 -pe2 - ce
>> > so pe1 - p1 - p2 -p3 are running rsvp and p4-pe2 are running ldp, and
>>edge ce's are using l3vpn. what are the options to have a labeled path
>>from pe2 to pe1 (considering that pe1 is not going to run ldp protocol,
>>and pe2 can't use rsvp so ldp tunneling is not an option here).
>> > thanks in advance for your comments.
>> > Andrew
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


mark.tinka at seacom

May 20, 2012, 1:50 PM

Post #8 of 8 (1619 views)
Permalink
Re: redistributing label between rsvp and ldp [In reply to]

On Monday, April 30, 2012 04:00:09 PM Keegan Holley wrote:

> I assumed you were exploring the configuration of the
> signaling protocols. My point was that I can't think of
> a situation (not saying that one doesn't exist) where I
> would run both protocols on purpose. At most it would
> happen during a cutover from one to the other. I can't
> think of many things one protocol does that the other
> doesn't that are important enough to keep both around
> permanently.

Until recently, p2mp LSP's were only available on RSVP-TE.
Now, mLDP also supports p2mp LSP's (and has room for native
mp2mp LSP's in the future).

For our IPTv deployment, we had RSVP-TE providing p2mp LSP's
re: the NG-MVPN architecture, and other MPLS traffic being
supported by p2p LDP (including LDPoRSVP LSP's).

Since mLDP now provides p2mp LSP's, and can be used to
signal the data planes that Multicast traffic will follow,
one may do away with RSVP-TE altogether. But there is still
a reason to retain RSVP-TE, and that is FRR.

Our thinking was:

o Use RSVP-TE for IPTv p2mp LSP's, as it provides
50ms protection.

o Use mLDP for data-based Multicast, as it scales
better.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

nsp juniper RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.