Subject: Re: Labelled route across AS

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:20:12 -0800

First let me clarify - that by the "route" you mean the customer
external not your peer's AS next hops. If that is the case I would not
talk about "redistribution" as this at least to me means transfer a
route from one routing protocol to the other but the more appropriate
term would be "propagate" as all we are talking about here is a
EBGP/IBGP propagation. 

So to answer your question about next hop both scenarios are possible
and adopted. In the small Inter-AS architectures where number of
inter-as routes does not exceed the capacity of edge box setting next
hop on the edge is fine. When a number of routes grow and your vpnv4
ebgp session is being extended from vpnv4 RRs then setting nhs on them
would not be advisable.

R.

> Radha PK wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> When a labelled route is received (by an ASBR) from a peer in a different AS, the route is redistributed into the AS.
> During this redistribution, the NextHop (to the address of ASBR doing the redistribution) and also the label could be changed
> Or
> Just redistribute the label and the route as they were received from the ASBR.
> 
> Could anyone suggest me as to which of these are usually adopted?
> Pls correct me if my interpretations are wrong.
> 
> With Regards.
> Radha
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> Chat with your friends as soon as they come online. Get Rediff Bol at
> http://bol.rediff.com

---

From: "Vipul Sharma" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:56:32 -0500

Hi!,
	Any thoughts on draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-02.txt? Is it becoming an RFC. I guess
my question is where does this draft stand? Thanx.

Vip

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:28:21 -0500

Vipul,

The IESG has rejected draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-02. Alternatively, they have
initiated a design team to investigate the more generic problem of tracing
through tunnels. So far, the design team has generated a requirements
document (draft-bonica-tunneltrace-00). A protocol specification is
forthcoming.

Discussion of the requirements document and the protocol specification has
moved to [email-masked].

                                     Thanks,
                                       Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vipul Sharma [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 11:57 AM
> To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE:draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-02.txt
>
>
> Hi!,