01-26-2009 11:52 AM
Does any body know how to configure label switching in VRF?
I have Tunnel 10 between two routers. The tunnel 10 is in VRF red. Below is the config.
ip vrf red
rd 10:10
route-target export 10:10
route-target import 10:10
!
!
mpls label protocol ldp
mpls ldp explicit-null
mpls ldp router-id vrf red Loopback1
!
interface Loopback0
ip address 172.22.17.3 255.255.255.255
!
interface Loopback1
ip vrf forwarding red
ip address 10.1.2.3 255.255.255.255
!
interface Tunnel10
ip vrf forwarding red
ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.252
mpls ip
tunnel source Loopback0
tunnel destination 172.22.17.4
LDP is in UP state:
R3#sh mpls ldp neighbor vrf red
Peer LDP Ident: 10.1.2.4:0
No TCP connection; Downstream
Up time: 01:04:30
Peer LDP Ident: 10.1.2.4:0; Local LDP Ident 10.1.2.3:0
TCP connection: 10.1.2.4.18593 - 10.1.2.3.646
State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 73/72; Downstream
Up time: 01:02:38
LDP discovery sources:
Tunnel10, Src IP addr: 10.1.1.2
Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident:
10.1.2.4 10.1.1.2
But I have no any bindings:
R3#sh mpls ldp bindings vrf red detail
- Empty output .-
R3#
Could you help me?
Solved! Go to Solution.
01-27-2009 08:45 AM
Hello Aliaksandr,
if you want to encrypt CE to CE you shouldn't use CsC (VRF or VRF).
I would :
build L2Tpv3 L2 transport CE to CE
on CE to backbone L3 IP interface
you then add a crypto map that will match:
L2TPv3 traffic carrying L2 ethernet frames
CE to CE ipv4 traffic
Actually I wonder if you really need a VRF in your case but I can understand it can help in segregating traffic (but you are using IPSec so the question arises)
EoMPLS would be ideal if no encyption of the L2 frames is required.
I think it can be a more clean design and you will however have to handle possible MTU issues just to say.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
01-26-2009 12:02 PM
Hello Aliaksandr,
to have mpls LDP bindings you need to advertise subnets over the link with a classless routing protocol (from RIPv2 to OSPF) in a PE-CE relationship.
the sh mpls ldp neigh says that:
the only addresses bounded to the peer are the GRE tunnel endpoints themselves
Then there is the nature of the link.
I don't know if it is possible to have Carrier Supporting Carrier over a GRE tunnel
see
Hope to help
Giuseppe
01-27-2009 03:35 AM
Giuseppe,
Thank you for reply.
I have connected CE router and configured dynamic routing protocol. On local and remote PE routers I can see the routes from CE in vrf red, but I do not see any label bindings.
Debug shows the following:
R3#debug mpls ldp bindings
LDP Label Information Base (LIB) changes debugging is on
R3#
*Jan 27 13:31:48.279: tc_handle_bg_timer_event: TC not enabled, ctx # 0(Default-
IP-Routing-Table)
R3#
01-26-2009 12:05 PM
Aliaksandr,
Unless you are going to deploy Carrier Supporting Carrier (CsC), you don't need to configure label switching within the VRF context. Can you please further explain what you are trying to achieve.
Regards
01-26-2009 12:31 PM
hritter,
Thank you for prompt reply.
I have two datacenters (DC) in different buildings. Now we have L2 VLAN for server clusters between DCs. We are required to encrypt all the traffic between DCs, including L2 Ethernet. The idea is to build EoMPLS. GRE will be encrypted with crypto map. I can not use GRT because GRT is already used in our aggregation switches (cat 6500).
01-27-2009 08:45 AM
Hello Aliaksandr,
if you want to encrypt CE to CE you shouldn't use CsC (VRF or VRF).
I would :
build L2Tpv3 L2 transport CE to CE
on CE to backbone L3 IP interface
you then add a crypto map that will match:
L2TPv3 traffic carrying L2 ethernet frames
CE to CE ipv4 traffic
Actually I wonder if you really need a VRF in your case but I can understand it can help in segregating traffic (but you are using IPSec so the question arises)
EoMPLS would be ideal if no encyption of the L2 frames is required.
I think it can be a more clean design and you will however have to handle possible MTU issues just to say.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
01-28-2009 12:58 AM
Hello Giuseppe,
Thank you for advice regarding L2TPv3.
I will test it in my lab to understand if it is a satisfied solution.
I will post the results.
Best Regards.
01-29-2009 09:46 PM
APatotski
L2TPV3 is the trusted solution. We are serving more than 30% of clients on L2 solution.
Configuration is given below
pseudowire-class SHIVLU
encapsulation l2tpv3
ip local interface Loopback20
interface GigabitEthernet0/2.998
encapsulation dot1Q 998
xconnect
end
the same will need to configure the another PE also.
how to check whether it is up or not
sh l2tun session circuit vcid 998
regards
shivlu jain
01-28-2009 06:55 AM
Hello Giuseppe,
L2TPv3 is the satisfied solution in our network. Unfortunately we have to use global routing table. Nevertheless, I think it is the best of possible solutions.
Thank you for help!
Best Regards.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide