The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] One LDP Implementation specific question of receivelabelmapping for prefix FECs
Hi Bob, > Hi Bruno, > > > Hi Pranjal, all, > > > > That's a good question; thanks for asking ;-) > > > > Currently, as per RFC 3036 section 3.5.7.1, Ru should perform a longest = > > match. > > I think you meant exact match. [Bruno D:] Indeed. Thanks for the rectification. > draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-03.txt: > > An LSR receiving a Label Mapping message from a downstream LSR for a > Prefix SHOULD NOT use the label for forwarding unless its routing ta- > ble contains an entry that exactly matches the FEC Element. > *************** > > > Bob > > > > But we believe that in some situation (eg use of IGP areas), we could = > > benefit from doing a longest match as this would relax the need for = > > leaking in the IGP all the /32 prefixes across area boundaries. To = > > initiate discussion on this point, we've written = > > draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-01.txt and presented it in Vancouver ( = > > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/slides/mpls-4.pdf ) > > > > Right after this presentation, it was suggested to gather feed-back on = > > the usefulness of this ID before moving forward.=20 > > > > Pranjal, all, could you please tell us whether you think that it is = > > worth being pursed? > > > > > > Best regards, > > Bruno > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Dutta, Pranjal [mailto:pdutta@riverstonenet.com]=20 > > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:11 PM > > To: mpls@ietf.org > > Subject: [mpls] One LDP Implementation specific question of receive = > > labelmapping for prefix FECs > > > > Hi, > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 I have a basic confusion on = > > the "Label Mapping Receive Procedure" explained in the appendix of RFC = > > 3036. One step says "Find the FEC next hop". When Ru receives a label = > > mapping for a FEC of type IPv4/v6 prefix from Rd, the next hop for the = > > FEC can be determined after route lookup. Now here, for looking up the = > > FEC at Ru do we need to do exact match or Longest prefix match? It is = > > quite possible that the prefix as FEC mapped by Rd may be within a = > > supernetted =A0prefix at Ru. The reason why I am asking is I guess the = > > implications could be different based on whether LSR is merge capable or = > > non-merge capable. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Pranjal > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpls mailing list > > mpls@lists.ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls |
|