Summarization breaks LSPs

Unanswered Question
Laurent Aubert Fri, 08/07/2009 - 04:50
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

Hi,


It's currently a restriction because otherwise the ABR doing the summarization will receive packets with VPN label only due to PHP. Traffic will be lost as the ABR is not aware of the VPN labels.


That's why you need a LSP between the PEs directly.


HTH


Laurent.

Laurent Aubert Wed, 08/12/2009 - 06:46
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

Hi Shivlu,


There is also another approach via draft-swallow-mpls-aggregate-fec-01


This solution doesn't have the LFIB convergence issue of RFC 5283 but introduce a third label (aggregate label) in the stack.


HTH


Laurent.

amit.bhagat Wed, 06/26/2013 - 21:10
User Badges:

Is RFC 5283 supported in IOS now? I can see the upstream router receiving label-bindings for more-specific prefixes and the summarized prefix from the downstream router, but it wont assign local labels since the more-specific prefixes are not present in this router's routing-table?


Regards,

Amit.

Jean-Marie NGOK GWEM Thu, 06/27/2013 - 11:20
User Badges:

LSP is built between host routes. And for MPLS L3VPN it's built between BGP Router-IDs . Summarization is not recommanded on the core to allow MPLS to form LSPs based on the OSPF link-state database..

Actions

This Discussion