Hi Xu, > If the implementation doesn't support interoperation between different > label distribution protocols, the implementation should have separate > LFIB entries for each distribution protocol. In this way, there are still > multiple LFIB (MPLS2MPLS) entries for a given prefix anyway.
How would you lookup mpls packets across those multiple tables ? One by one ? > No matter whether R2 has another T-LDP session or not, the label > 33 learnt from the T-LDP session with R3 should not be deemed as > an incoming label. Incoming labels should always be those labels > allocated by R2 itself. Of course. I did not draw the targetted session to say R10 from R2 allocating 44. The point was that if at R2 targetted LDP wins over IGP for label allocation (and we are talking about global per R2 label space - not per interface) labels distributed by IGP for FEC 3.3.3.3 will not end up in LFIB. The same actually for labeled-bgp and IGP global labels. So I guess we understand each other's point now. You say to always install all labels regardless of what protocol src FEC is in the RIB. Specifically all labels locally allocated as well as global labels distributed by IGP in one or many LFIBs. I do not think this is the case today at least in few mpls implementations. Moreover I am not sure that this is always possible with the index based label hack to accomodate overlapping label spaces across nodes. Best, R. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
