Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

ldp

1)why is it mandatory that in targeted ldp we need to use loopbacks only for peering..?why cannot I use one of the physical interfaces.

2) In which all scenarios/services we use targeted LDP.AS far as I know only VPWS services..Whether targeted LDP can be used in MPLS L3 vpns..?

Thanks in advance

Thomas.

7 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Re: ldp

1) This is the way the system has been implemented. In which way does it restricts you?

2) If you want LDP over MPLS TE Tunnels then a directed LDP session is also used between the head end and the tail end.

Hope this helps,

Harold Ritter
Sr. Technical Leader
CCIE 4168 (R&S, SP)
harold@cisco.com
México móvil: +52 1 55 8312 4915
Cisco México 
Paseo de la Reforma 222 Piso 19
Cuauhtémoc, Juárez
Ciudad de México, 06600
México
New Member

Re: ldp

Harold,

Thanks for your reply..I was just thinking abt the possibility of LDP over LDP(dont know whether it is possible).something like 2 P.E nodes connected back to back with no P nodes in between,and having a targeted LDP session and direct LDP neighbor relationship at the same time to the same peer P.E.

Just wondering whether these type of implementation is supported.?

2) Also as I asked in my earlier psot,whether targeted LDP can be ever used in MPLS L3 VPNs..?

Thanks in advance

Thomas.

Re: ldp

Hello,

yes it is supported to have targeted LDP and "mpls ip" on an interface connecting two MPLS routers. There will be only one TCP session resulting from this scenario.

Targeted LDP can be configured manually and is useful in a MPLS L3VPN environment to avoid link recovery issues. In case a link fails and is restored, there is a race condition between the IGP and LDP. in the not unlikely case that the IGP converges faster than LDP establishes a TCP session and advertises labels, a path could be selected by the IGP, which does not have an LSP yet. Thus there is an outage for MPLS L3VPN traffic.

This can be avoided through targeted LDP, because the session is still active even if the direct link between two MPLS routers fails. Thus after link recovery the LIB still contains the LDP labels of the neighbor and thus an LSP is established as soon as the IGP converges.

Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.

Regards, Martin

Silver

Re: ldp

Nice explanation Martin.

The targeted session is configured using the command

mpls ldp neigh targeted command

New Member

Re: ldp

martin,

Thanks for your explanation..But I am afraid I have to disagree with your last sentence given below.

<<>

My thinking is that the scenario is LDP over LDP,because in the targeted LDP the source and the destination will be the loopbacks and the other it is physical interfaces.So technically it is LDP over LDP..

Any comments..? or correct me if I got it wrong..

Re: ldp

Hello,

I guess you are wrong as long as we consider the default behavoiur of LDP in frame-mode MPLS. By default LDP (or TDP) hellos are sent on every interface configured with "mpls ip". These hellos contain the LDP ID, which is in the form of :0, where the IP is of a loopback interface.

And this IP is used for the LDP TCP session. So it will not be "LDP over LDP". There will be only one TCP session to port 646 between the loopback addresses of neighboring MPLS routers.

You could reconfigure a MPLS router to use the physical interface address for LDP, but this is usually not done, because you might loose all LDP sessions because of an interface failure.

There is also no gain in trying to force more than one LDP session, because there is only one platform-wide label space in frame-based MPLS. Once a label is advertised it doesn´t make sense to advertise it again.

Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.

Regards, Martin

New Member

Re: ldp

martin,

Thanks for your explanation..But I am afraid I have to disagree with your last sentence given below.

<<>

My thinking is that the scenario is LDP over LDP,because in the targeted LDP the source and the destination will be the loopbacks and the other it is physical interfaces.So technically it is LDP over LDP..

Any comments..? or correct me if I got it wrong..

271
Views
3
Helpful
7
Replies
CreatePlease login to create content