Subject: RE: Address Table

From: "gopinathg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:21:07 +0530

Hello all,

I will state the implications of this problem more elaborately.

Suppose 2 LSRs are connected by a pair of interfaces, one of which is not
MPLS capable. Assume that the Next Hop (for a FEC) resolves to the non-mpls
interface (due to routing protocol state info.). Now if the peer has
advertised the non-MPLS address also, then we can find out that the NH
actually corresponds to the particular LSR and use its' LSRID (stored in the
peer table) to create a session with it/or use the existing session with
peer LSR. If on the other hand, Non-Mpls interface addresses are not
advertised, then we will not be able to do so.

Also, in CR-LDP, the ER-HOP can be the address of a non-MPLS interface of
the peer. In this case also, we wouldn’t be able to map on to the
corresponding peer.

Hence wouldn’t it be useful to advertise non-mpls interface address also in
the address message.

Thanks in advance

Regards,
gopinathg

gopinathg wrote:

> Hi
>
>  what does the peer addresses table in LDP specify ?
>
> MPLS inteface addresses of the peer alone or  non-mpls interface addresses
> or the peer also?.

Hi,
         Yes  each  router maintains an address list  for each of it's LDP
peers with which it maintains an LDP session.  It provides details of
interfaces addresses for a given adjacent LDP peer.

  Definitely , it makes sense in maintaining address list of interfaces
which
are  enabled for MPLS.

Bye
Phani.R