[mpls-linux-general] EX_ROUTE and each micro-flow mapping into LSP in RSVP

[Heeyeol Y. <hee...@CS...>]

I am using RSVP-TE(http://dsmpls.atlantis.rug.ac.be/_

I wonder why icmp reply packet is not encapsulated with MPLS B=>A when I
see packet with ethereal.
ICMP reply is encapsulated. 
How to make bidirectional LSP? RSVP console asks me to close the current
session?

2. Automatic response in egress and apply in ingress.
I wonder if I must key in RSVP response at node B. What kind of API
should I use ?

3. mapping each flow into LSP.
I wonder this kind of mapping of each flow(such as one connection of
ftp) into LSP is possible.
I found dead code in tunnel.c, "-d dport".
How can I specify mapping? rapi_session?

4. For specifying intermediate nodes, rtest2 is recommended. But when I
key in value "Destination source LSPID", the problem is that LSPID is
not returned from rsvp daemon because path message goes out other I/F
with conventional routing table. So I don't know LSPID when I key in
rtest2.

For example,

      |               |                 |
eth0 |	        eth0 |            eth0 |
   | A | ------- | B | -------- | C | 
      eth1      eth1 eth2        eth1
I want to make LSP connection A(eth1) -> B(eth1, eth2) -> C (eth1).
In each node eth0 is default gateway. So RSVP PATH goes out via eth0 in
A.

Furthermore should I modify tunnel.c code for explicit routing?

Vito Covito wrote:
> 
> we have configured two linux box in the same lan ( A:192.168.1.1
> B:192.168.1.3)
> 
> We have installed the Tequila patched rsvd for mpls. (we have followed
all
> the instructions on the web site)
> A:                                              B:
> dest lsp tcp 192.168.1.3/12                             dest lsp tcp
192.168.1.3/12
> sender 192.168.1.1/12                           reserve 192.168.1.3 ff
192.168.1.1/12
> 
> The lsp was create.
> but in tunnel -L -c  we have "/ 0" in dest field ???
Thats' OK the destination is only filled in after the mapping.

> 
> LSPID              destination    (type lab/exp/tab)   iface   Packets
Bytes
>    12                     /  0           ( gen 168/  0/  0)    eth0
0      0
> 
> When we want simulate the example explained, at piont of mapping
tunnell we
> have this error:
> 
> # ./tunnel -m -p icmp -d 192.168.1.3/32 -l 12
> 
> tunnel: libip4tc.c:384: do_check: Assertion `h->info.valid_hooks == (1
<< 0 |
> 1 << 3)' failed.
> Abortito (core dumped)
This is not so OK of course. This is actually pretty weird.
Can you give me the backtrace and the value of h->info.valid_hooks? 
(gdb tunnel core. where. disp h->info.valid_hooks)
Which distribution and compiler are you using? Were there warnings
compiling tunnel?

Pim.
> 
> 
> what is the problem??
> can you help me??
> Tanks very mutch.
> 
> --
> Vito Covito
> Network Administrator Pandora Partenopea
> vi...@pa...
> _______________________________________________
> ds_mpls mailing list
> ds...@at...
> http://www-lists.atlantis.rug.ac.be/mail_external/listinfo/ds_mpls

-- 
Pim Van Heuven            Ghent University - IMEC
Department  of  Information  Technology   (INTEC)
Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat, 41 B-9000, Gent, Belgium
pim...@in...
        DiffServ/MPLS(RSVP-TE) for Linux:
        http://dsmpls.atlantis.rug.ac.be