Subject: RE: Exact match

From: Bora Akyol <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:13:16 -0700

See comments within:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Wu [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 6:11 AM
To: Rahul Kasralikar
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: re:Exact match

In message "Exact match", Rahul Kasralikar writes:

>These are questions regarding LDP spec and label forwarding..
>
>1. In ldp-05 spec (3.8.5.1) "unless its routing table includes an entry
that
>exactly matches the requested prefix or host address, the lsr must
>respond with a no route notification message".

It's 3.5.8.1 :-)
>
>What if you have a longer match than the requested FEC? I would assume
>that you would terminate the LSP there (that LSR would be the egress LSR)
>instead of responding with the no route notification.

>I  assume you mean a more general route. e.g, the router has 123.0.0.0/8
>and the FEC is 123.1.2.0/24. In this case, I don't see why should the LSP 
>even terminate on the LSR. It should continue.

Bora:: What is meant is that the FEC in the label request is for 10.10/16
and you have two routes for
10.10.X/17 and 10.10.Y/17.

Bora:: In this case the LSP should terminate here, but instead you end up
sending a "No Route to Destination" error. Basically, my opinion is that LDP
was not designed for networks with complex routing topologies and that used
BGP for external routes. I can fix this in our implementation but then we
would not be LDP compliant.

Bora:: I think that we should do a sanity check between the current
CR-LDP/LDP drafts and the BGP-MPLS label drafts to see what we can support.

>
>2. Can we run LDP across AS boundary domains? (CRLDP?
>RSVP?)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rahul Kasralikar
>
>