Re: [mpls-linux-general] quagga-ldp vs quagga-mpls

[James R. L. <jl...@mi...>]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 02:59:59PM +1000, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 22:06 -0500, James R. Leu wrote:
> > > what's the difference between the quagga patches in ldp-portable and
> > > mpls-linux? =20
> >=20
> > I haven't updated the patch in ldp-portable for sometime.  The one
> > in mpls-linux is more recent.
>=20
> aah, ok.  thanks for clarifying that
>=20
> > One thing to note, is that quagga-mpls is not ready for users.  It still
> > is buggy.  If you are planning on helping in the development of
> > mpls-linux/quagga-mpls you will want to use the code in the P4 depot.
>=20
> ok, I've checked out quagga-mpls from the P4 depot and got it compiled
> and installed.
>=20
> by 'not ready for users' do you mean 'not working' or 'working with
> rough edges' ??

I would say the later of the two, others may say the former :-)

> to give some background I work for an ISP and we're hoping to get a
> linux box into our MPLS cloud to do some management/monitoring type
> stuff

Ahhh.  Someone who has a definitive use, this is good.  I am more then
willing to help someone, help me, get quagga-mpls working for a specific
case.

> we've just moved all our Cisco gear over to LDP from TDP.  is
> mpls-linux/quagga-mpls at a stage where it could talk to our Cisco gear?

I have been testing about juniper gear.  I do not have access to any Cisco
gear that can run MPLS code.

> if not, where do I need to start looking to make it?

You should be able to form an single adj and a session with a Cisco, initial
label exchange should work fine, but right now the place I'm seeing
failures is when binding a route to a LSP.

Let me know how your initial testing goes.

> regards,
> Daniel Quinlan
>=20

--=20
James R. Leu
jl...@mi...