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. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Summarization breaks LSPs

The Loopback 0 IP address will never be summarized in network as loopback summarization breaks LSPs required for MPLS/VPN.

Can someone please explain?

5 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Re: Summarization breaks LSPs

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.

Silver

Re: Summarization breaks LSPs

please read the article given

http://shivlu.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-summarization-is-not-recommended-on.html

Now loopback summarization is possible, for this please read the given post

http://shivlu.blogspot.com/2009/05/loopback-summarization-is-now-possible.html

regards

shivlu jain

Cisco Employee

Re: Summarization breaks LSPs

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.

New Member

Summarization breaks LSPs

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.

Summarization breaks LSPs

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..

783
Views
14
Helpful
5
Replies