mpls-linux-general Mailing List for MPLS for Linux (Page 136)
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
jleu
Menu
▾
▴
mpls-linux-general — Mailing list for general discussion about MPLS for Linux
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2000 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(26) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 |
Jan
(22) |
Feb
(19) |
Mar
(19) |
Apr
(45) |
May
(52) |
Jun
(101) |
Jul
(79) |
Aug
(24) |
Sep
(43) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(71) |
Dec
(53) |
| 2002 |
Jan
(111) |
Feb
(123) |
Mar
(67) |
Apr
(61) |
May
(75) |
Jun
(26) |
Jul
(36) |
Aug
(41) |
Sep
(79) |
Oct
(85) |
Nov
(58) |
Dec
(39) |
| 2003 |
Jan
(26) |
Feb
(61) |
Mar
(80) |
Apr
(56) |
May
(39) |
Jun
(44) |
Jul
(28) |
Aug
(25) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(20) |
Nov
(38) |
Dec
(9) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(14) |
Feb
(14) |
Mar
(68) |
Apr
(17) |
May
(45) |
Jun
(42) |
Jul
(41) |
Aug
(23) |
Sep
(46) |
Oct
(89) |
Nov
(55) |
Dec
(33) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(74) |
Feb
(39) |
Mar
(105) |
Apr
(96) |
May
(43) |
Jun
(48) |
Jul
(21) |
Aug
(22) |
Sep
(33) |
Oct
(28) |
Nov
(29) |
Dec
(81) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(37) |
Feb
(32) |
Mar
(147) |
Apr
(37) |
May
(33) |
Jun
(28) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(20) |
Sep
(15) |
Oct
(23) |
Nov
(30) |
Dec
(40) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(20) |
Feb
(24) |
Mar
(65) |
Apr
(69) |
May
(41) |
Jun
(53) |
Jul
(39) |
Aug
(76) |
Sep
(53) |
Oct
(43) |
Nov
(26) |
Dec
(24) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(19) |
Feb
(67) |
Mar
(91) |
Apr
(75) |
May
(47) |
Jun
(63) |
Jul
(68) |
Aug
(39) |
Sep
(44) |
Oct
(33) |
Nov
(62) |
Dec
(84) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(14) |
Feb
(39) |
Mar
(55) |
Apr
(63) |
May
(16) |
Jun
(9) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(10) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(13) |
May
(4) |
Jun
(5) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(2) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(21) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2015 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
|
From: Igor V. <ch...@fl...> - 2002-06-19 20:35:06
|
Hello all, Consider this setup: LER2------LSR1-------LER1 Let's assume LER2 is the egress for FEC1. LSR1's IP routing table contains FEC1, (with LER2 as a gw). LDP session establishes between LER2 and LSR1, and LER2 transmits a label for FEC1 to LSR1. Now, inside ldp_linux daemon on LSR1, I type prompt>add route FEC1/32 LER1 How does LDP consider this now: a) LER2 is no longer next hop for FEC1, LER1 is the new next hop for FEC1 b) LER1 and LER2 are both valid next hops for FEC1 ? I tested this setup. If LER1 is also the egress for FEC1, and LDP session establishes between LER1 and LSR1, I get 2 labels for the same FEC on LSR1. I tested this in conservative retention mode, but I'm uncertain how ldp understands the "add route" inside the daemon. If a) is the case, then LSR1 should issue a label release message for the FEC, which it does not. Thanks in advance, Igor Vukomanovic |
|
From: Morvan D. <mo...@so...> - 2002-06-19 20:21:04
|
Hi Jim!
I'am using kernel 2.4.12 patched with the last mpls-linux cvs version!
I too get ldp-portable today from cvs.
About zebra I'm using an cvs version from 26/mai/2002, because the today version on zebra cvs show erros applying the ldp-portable/zebra-ldp.diff patch.
I try your suggestion (include in CFLAGS) but zebra compilation show other errors (as bellow):
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/zebra/ospfd'
Making all in mplsd
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/zebra/mplsd'
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib -I/usr/src/linux/include/linux -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_fib.c
In file included from /usr/include/bits/types.h:143,
from /usr/include/stdio.h:35,
from ../lib/zebra.h:34,
from ../mplsd/impl_socket.h:4,
from ../mplsd/ldp_handle_type.h:13,
from ../mplsd/ldp_struct.h:277,
from ../mplsd/ldp.h:4,
from impl_fib.c:1:
/usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:48: parse error before `size_t'
/usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:48: warning: no semicolon at end of struct or union
/usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:51: parse error before `__stacksize'
/usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:51: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
/usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:52: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
In file included from /usr/include/_G_config.h:44,
from /usr/include/libio.h:30,
from /usr/include/stdio.h:64,
from ../lib/zebra.h:34,
from ../mplsd/impl_socket.h:4,
from ../mplsd/ldp_handle_type.h:13,
from ../mplsd/ldp_struct.h:277,
from ../mplsd/ldp.h:4,
from impl_fib.c:1:
/usr/include/gconv.h:71: parse error before `size_t'
/usr/include/gconv.h:84: parse error before `size_t'
/usr/include/gconv.h:93: parse error before `size_t'
/usr/include/gconv.h:169: parse error before `size_t'
/usr/include/gconv.h:169: warning: no semicolon at end of struct or union
/usr/include/gconv.h:172: parse error before `}'
/usr/include/gconv.h:172: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
In file included from /usr/include/libio.h:30,
from /usr/include/stdio.h:64,
from ../lib/zebra.h:34,
from ../mplsd/impl_socket.h:4,
from ../mplsd/ldp_handle_type.h:13,
from ../mplsd/ldp_struct.h:277,
from ../mplsd/ldp.h:4,
from impl_fib.c:1:
/usr/include/_G_config.h:47: field `__cd' has incomplete type
/usr/include/_G_config.h:50: field `__cd' has incomplete type
/usr/include/_G_config.h:53: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
make[2]: *** [impl_fib.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/zebra/mplsd'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/zebra'
make: *** [all-recursive-am] Error 2
cheers,
Morvan.
At 01:11 19/06/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>It is looking for the kernel header file <linux/mpls.h> which is located
>in /usr/src/linux/include/linux. Try adding -I /usr/src/linux/include/linux
>to the CFLAGs (where /usr/src/linux is where your patched version of the
>kernel resides).
>
>Jim
>
|
|
From: James R. L. <jl...@mi...> - 2002-06-19 05:26:30
|
You need to download the lastest version of mpls-linux via CVS. On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:20:54PM -0400, Oumarou, Aboubakary wrote: > Good morning, > > I would like to configure MPLS on Redhat linux 7.1 for QoS experimentations. > Could someone tell me where to start ? Is this something included with Linux > like DiffServ or do I need to download specific patches. > MPLS-Linux documentation and patches. > > thanks, > Abou > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > > _______________________________________________ > mpls-linux-general mailing list > mpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general -- James R. Leu |
|
From: James R. L. <jl...@mi...> - 2002-06-19 05:18:30
|
Interesting. After I have chance to finish the ldp-portable/zebra integration I will work on debugging the differnt modes of operation. Jim On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 08:51:48PM +0200, Igor Vukomanovic wrote: > Hello, > > I've tried out several modes of operation for ldp-linux and I'm having some > rather problematic results. > The setup I used was: > > LER1---------------------LSR1---------------------LER2 > 192.168.20.200 192.168.20.201 192.168.19.206 > 192.168.19.204 > > All machines mpls-linux 0.996 patched kernel 2.4.12, ldp-portable CVS (a few > weeks ago) > > Firstly, when I changed from Downstream Unsolicited to Downstream on Demand > mode, after adding global and interface, ldp crashes. I browsed through > mailing list archives and found Amish Verna's message from 2002-04-11, the > same thing happened to him but there was no reply. Is there a solution to > this problem? > > Another thing I tried was testing whether ldp really works in Ordered > control mode, as the default is Ordered, but I found that it is not so. It > behaves as if it works in Independent mode! Let me explain my test: > In the setup above, the routing was: > LER1: > route add -host 192.168.20.201 gw 192.168.20.201 > route add -host 192.168.19.203 gw 192.168.20.201 > > LSR1: > route add 192.168.20.200 gw 192.168.20.200 > route add 192.168.19.206 gw 192.168.19.206 > route add 192.168.19.203 gw 192.168.19.206 > > LER2: > route add 192.168.19.204 gw 192.168.19.204 > > The LDP session was first setup between LSR1 and LER2. After that the LDP > session was setup between LSR1 and LER1. > > Note that 192.168.19.203 is a *fictional* FEC for which the LER1, when > working in the Independent mode, should get a label for, from the LSR1. > But when working in the Ordered mode, the LSR1 *must not* send any labels to > LER1 for a FEC 192.168.19.203 since LER2, the next hop LSR for that FEC > (from LSR1's point of view) didn't yet send labels for that FEC. (It didn't > send and it won't send because I never added that route in the routing > table, on purpose). > But, I noticed a label mapping message originated from LSR1 to LER1 with a > label for a FEC 192.168.19.203. > (I grabbed it with Ethereal, and can present it if neccessary). > > The result on LER1: > > voip5:/home/igor# cat /proc/net/mpls_fec > 40005403 192.168.19.203/32 > 40006003 192.168.20.201/32 > > voip5:/home/igor# cat /proc/net/mpls_out > 40005403 0/0/0 PUSH(gen 21) SET(lec0,192.168.20.201) > 40006003 102/6222/0 PUSH(gen 24) SET(lec0,192.168.20.201) > > According to RFC3036: > > " When using LSP ordered control, an LSR may initiate the transmission > of a label mapping only for a FEC for which it has a label mapping > for the FEC next hop, or for which the LSR is the egress. For each > FEC for which the LSR is not the egress and no mapping exists, the > LSR MUST wait until a label from a downstream LSR is received before > mapping the FEC and passing corresponding labels to upstream LSRs." > > Is LSR1 the Egress for a FEC 192.168.19.203? > > According to RFC3036: > > " An LSR may act as an egress LSR, with respect to a particular FEC, > under any of the following conditions: > 1. The FEC refers to the LSR itself (including one of its directly > attached interfaces). > 2. The next hop router for the FEC is outside of the Label > Switching Network. > 3. FEC elements are reachable by crossing a routing domain > boundary, such as another area for OSPF summary networks, or > another autonomous system for OSPF AS externals and BGP routes" > > Obviously none of the 1,2, or 3 applies. Therefore the LSR1 is not the > egress for that particular FEC, and it didn't yet receive the mapping from > the FEC next hop. It shouldn't have sent the label mapping message. > > According to the RFC, the fact that LSR1 works in Unsolicited label > distribution mode, doesn't change above facts; It only means the LSR1 is > responsible for sending labels upstream to the LER1, (doesn't wait for the > label request from LER1); In Downstream on Demand mode, the LER1 would be > responsible for those labels (by sending label request messages to LSR1). > > Sincerely, > > Igor Vukomanovic > > P.S. > Some additional info : > On LSR1, the result was also OK : > > voip4:/# cat /proc/net/mpls_out > 40004402 72/4560/0 PUSH(gen 17) SET(eth0,192.168.19.206) > 40004803 38/2681/0 PUSH(gen 18) SET(lec0,192.168.20.200) > > voip4:/# cat /proc/net/mpls_fec > 40004402 192.168.19.206/32 > 40004803 192.168.20.200/32 > > However, on LER2 there were no out labels or fec's. I guess this is the > known problem of one-way LSP Morvan Daniel Muller and some other people > encountered. However, if I add: > > route add -host 192.168.20.200 gw 192.168.19.204 > > on LER2, it would create an out label for the FEC 192.168.20.200 ! (still no > labels for 192.168.19.204 though). > > (Just a piece of curious information). > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Multimillion Dollar Computer Inventory > Live Webcast Auctions Thru Aug. 2002 - http://www.cowanalexander.com/calendar > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls-linux-general mailing list > mpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general -- James R. Leu |
|
From: James R. L. <jl...@mi...> - 2002-06-19 05:14:50
|
This is the wrong mailing list for the RSVP-TE implementation. Jim On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:37:52PM -0300, ale...@re... wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to compile the file 'rtap_cmds.c' > > And I'm receiving the folowing mesage because of line 1005 > > too few arguments to function 'rapi_reserve' > > Can anyone help me resolving my problem? > > Alexandre > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Multimillion Dollar Computer Inventory > Live Webcast Auctions Thru Aug. 2002 - http://www.cowanalexander.com/calendar > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls-linux-general mailing list > mpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general -- James R. Leu |
|
From: James R. L. <jl...@mi...> - 2002-06-19 05:13:43
|
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:05:54PM +0800, pingping han wrote: > I use three computers to make a mpls environment.=20 > every computer have two etherent cards. > when using ldp_linux to set up a LSP, I dont know=20 > how to configure "add global <ip for lsrid>". > which ip address should i use? >=20 > for example:=20 >=20 > LSRA(eth0)--(eth0)LSRB(eth1)--(eth0)LSRC >=20 > LSRA: (eth1)192.168.0.1, 192.169.0.1(eth0) =20 > LSRB: (eth0)192.169.0.2, 192.170.0.1(eth1) > LSRC: (eth0)192.170.0.2, 192.171.0.1(eth1) >=20 > LSRB: add global? eth0 or eth1 ip address? > what about LSRA & LSRC ? It needs to be an address that is attach ed to one of the interfaces. You will then need to create a static route to that address on all of the otehr LDP speakers. For example: On LSRA specif the LSRID to be 192.168.0.1 then add a static route on LSRB and LSRC to 192.168.0.1/32 via the next hop. A general rule for LDP, if you can't ping it before running ldp_linux, the LSP will not get setup correctly. >=20 > thanks >=20 > Best Regards > Aileen Han >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > Best Regards >=20 > Aileen Han=20 >=20 >=20 > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!?=20 > 2002=C4=EA=CA=C0=BD=E7=B1=AD=C8=BA=D0=DB=F7=E9=D5=BD =D1=C5=BB=A2=D6=D0= =B9=FA=BE=DB=BD=B9=C8=D5=BA=AB > http://cn.fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/ >=20 > _______________________________________________________________ >=20 > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?s= ource=3Dosdntextlink >=20 > _______________________________________________ > mpls-linux-general mailing list > mpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general --=20 James R. Leu |
|
From: James R. L. <jl...@mi...> - 2002-06-19 05:10:17
|
It is looking for the kernel header file <linux/mpls.h> which is located in /usr/src/linux/include/linux. Try adding -I /usr/src/linux/include/li= nux to the CFLAGs (where /usr/src/linux is where your patched version of the kernel resides). Jim On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:17:43AM -0300, Morvan Daniel M=FCller wrote: > Hi Jim! >=20 > I try to compile zebra today 14/06/2002, 8:30am, with ldp-portable zebr= a_ldp.diff patch without successful! >=20 > # history > 1001 cd ~morvan/ > 1002 cd cvs/ > 1007 pwd > 1008 CVSROOT=3D":pserver:an...@an...:/cvsroot" > 1009 export CVSROOT > 1010 cvs login > 1011 cvs login > 1012 cvs -z3 -d:pserver:an...@an...:/cvsroot co zebra > 1013 cvs -z3 -d:pserver:ano...@cv...:/cvs= root/mpls-linux co ldp-portable > 1014 cp -pR zebra ldp-portable /usr/src > 1015 cd /usr/src/zebra/ > 1016 patch -p1 < ../ldp-portable/zebra-ldp.diff > patch.log 2>&1 > 1018 cat patch.log | more > * LAST cvs zebra version show some problems with this patch! > * I have one cvs zebra version from 25-mai-2002 that's ok for th= is patch! > 1019 cd mplsd/ > 1020 vi ./create-links=20 > * SRC=3D/usr/src/ldp-portable/lib > 1021 chmod 755 ./create-links > 1022 ./create-links=20 > 1023 cd .. > 1024 ./configure > 1025 cd mplsd/ > 1026 make all > make_1.log 2>&1 > 1027 cat make_1.log=20 >=20 > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_fib.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_ifmgr.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_lock.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_mm.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_mpls.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_policy.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_socket.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_timer.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_tree.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c in-instr.c > In file included from in-instr.c:8: > out-segment.h:4:24: linux/mpls.h: No such file or directory > In file included from in-instr.c:9: > in-segment.h:4:24: linux/mpls.h: No such file or directory > In file included from in-instr.c:10: > in-instr.h:4:24: linux/mpls.h: No such file or directory > in-instr.c:16:24: linux/mpls.h: No such file or directory > make: *** [in-instr.o] Error 1 >=20 > I TRY this bellow solution without successfull! >=20 > 1031 mkdir /usr/src/zebra/linux > 1032 cp -p /usr/src/linux/include/linux/mpls.h /usr/src/zebra/linux > 1033 make clean > 1034 make all > make_2.log 2>&1 > 1035 cat make_2.log=20 >=20 > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_fib.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_ifmgr.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_lock.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_mm.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_mpls.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_policy.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_socket.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_timer.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c impl_tree.c > gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../l= ib -g -O2 -Wall -c in-instr.c > in-instr.c: In function `do_mplsd_in_instr': > in-instr.c:102: warning: passing arg 2 of `mos2ml' from incompatible po= inter type > in-instr.c:117: `SIOCSMPLSININSTR' undeclared (first use in this functi= on) > in-instr.c:117: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once > in-instr.c:117: for each function it appears in.) > make: *** [in-instr.o] Error 1 >=20 > Do you know what's the problem? >=20 > Cheers,=20 >=20 > Morvan. >=20 >=20 > At 11:33 11/06/2002 -0500, James R. Leu wrote: > >The problem you are seeing (LSP setup in one direction) is a know > >problem. I'm working on a fix in the zebra<->ldp-portable version > >(grab it from CVS to see the progress thus far) > > > >Jim > > > >On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:20:42AM -0300, Morvan Daniel M=FCller wrote= : > >> Hello all! > >>=20 > >> I want to make ldp-linux work for this simple testbed: > >>=20 > >> My testbed configuration is: > >> hostA LERA CORE LERB hostB > >> 10.1.0.2/24----10.1.0.1/24 10.2.1.1/24----10.2.1.= 2/24 > >> 10.1.1.2/24-----10.1.1.1/24 10.2.0.1/24----10.2.0.2/24 =20 > >>=20 > >> I'am using only host static routes to make hostA and hostB are reach= eable to each other. > >> Static Routes added at: > >> LERA: > >> route add 10.2.1.2/32 gw 10.1.0.1 > >> LERB: > >> route add 10.1.1.2/32 gw 10.2.0.1 > >> CORE: > >> route add 10.1.1.2/32 gw 10.1.0.2 > >> route add 10.2.1.2/32 gw 10.2.0.2 > >> =20 > >> For tests I use the command "traceroute" with: > >> IP_only (ip_forwarding) > >> LDP: "mpls-adm" and "ldp-linux". > >>=20 > >> I were Waiting this Results: > >> traceroute -n from hostA to host B: may show 4 hops with standard IP= , an 3 hops with LDP (mpls_adm or ldp_linux). > >>=20 > >> For IP (ip_forwarding only) it's ok - 4 hops. > >> For LDP using "mpls_adm" it's ok - 3 hops > >> For LDP using "ldp_linux" IT NEVER WORK!!!!!!!!!!=20 > >> =20 > >> I see that "ldp_linux" only create the LSP for one direction (from A= to B)! > >> Like documentation "ldp_linux" create LSPs basead on the L3 informat= ion (so, static routes created above should result in LSPs created in two= directions)! > >>=20 > >> I follow README.sample commands, but for the sample environment it t= oo don't work!=20 > >>=20 > >> If some one in this mailing list had sucessfull configured "ldp_linu= x" in such environment > >> or like README.sample and the LSPs are dinamically create for two di= rections, please let me know! > >>=20 > >> Morvan. > >>=20 > >> _______________________________________________________________ > >>=20 > >> Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > >> August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cf= m?source=3Dosdntextlink > >>=20 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpls-linux-general mailing list > >> mpl...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general > > > >--=20 > >James R. Leu > > --=20 James R. Leu |
|
From: Yahoo! G. N. <no...@ya...> - 2002-06-16 05:14:19
|
Hello, The moderator of the linuxmpls group has denied your request for membership. The moderator of each Yahoo! Groups group chooses whether to restrict membership in his or her group. Moderators who choose to restrict membership also choose whom to admit. Please note that this decision is final and that Yahoo! Groups does not control group membership. If you would like to create a new group at Yahoo! Groups please visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/start Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups as your email group service. Regards, Yahoo! Groups Customer Care Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ |
|
From: senthil a. <mpl...@ya...> - 2002-06-16 03:46:48
|
U have requested for subscription to linuxmpls yahoo group.But,I am little reluctant to approve for two reasons: - you have a filter feature that will never allow the yahoo group mails . - this list is of low volume and doesnt have intersecting goals with sourceforge mpls linux list. If some one wants to subscribe ..they can join as individual members . thanks, -moderator ===== Ayyasamy Senthilkumar M.S.(Computer Networking) UMKC,MO. ----------------------------- An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field. --Niels Bohr. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com |
|
From: Yahoo! G. <confirm-s2-Q_0ADj=vtywC7BnJEHHdGQTv5CE-mpls-linux-general=<lis...@ya...> - 2002-06-15 23:48:41
|
Hello mpl...@li..., We have received your request to join the linuxmpls group hosted by Yahoo! Groups, a free, easy-to-use community service. This request will expire in 21 days. TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE GROUP: 1) Go to the Yahoo! Groups site by clicking on this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/i?i=Q_0ADj-vtywC7BnJEHHdGQTv5CE&e=mpls-linux-general%40lists%2Esourceforge%2Enet (If clicking doesn't work, "Cut" and "Paste" the line above into your Web browser's address bar.) -OR- 2) REPLY to this email by clicking "Reply" and then "Send" in your email program If you did not request, or do not want, a membership in the linuxmpls group, please accept our apologies and ignore this message. Regards, Yahoo! Groups Customer Care Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ |
|
From: Morvan D. <mo...@so...> - 2002-06-14 14:15:39
|
Hi Jim!
I try to compile zebra today 14/06/2002, 8:30am, with ldp-portable=
zebra_ldp.diff patch without successful!
# history
1001 cd ~morvan/
1002 cd cvs/
1007 pwd
1008 CVSROOT=3D":pserver:an...@an...:/cvsroot"
1009 export CVSROOT
1010 cvs login
1011 cvs login
1012 cvs -z3 -d:pserver:an...@an...:/cvsroot co zebra
1013 cvs -z3=
-d:pserver:ano...@cv...:/cvsroot/mpls-linux co=
ldp-portable
1014 cp -pR zebra ldp-portable /usr/src
1015 cd /usr/src/zebra/
1016 patch -p1 < ../ldp-portable/zebra-ldp.diff > patch.log 2>&1
1018 cat patch.log | more
* LAST cvs zebra version show some problems with this patch!
* I have one cvs zebra version from 25-mai-2002 that's ok for this=
patch!
1019 cd mplsd/
1020 vi ./create-links=20
* SRC=3D/usr/src/ldp-portable/lib
1021 chmod 755 ./create-links
1022 ./create-links=20
1023 cd ..
1024 ./configure
1025 cd mplsd/
1026 make all > make_1.log 2>&1
1027 cat make_1.log=20
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_fib.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_ifmgr.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_lock.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_mm.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_mpls.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_policy.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_socket.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_timer.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_tree.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c in-instr.c
In file included from in-instr.c:8:
out-segment.h:4:24: linux/mpls.h: No such file or directory
In file included from in-instr.c:9:
in-segment.h:4:24: linux/mpls.h: No such file or directory
In file included from in-instr.c:10:
in-instr.h:4:24: linux/mpls.h: No such file or directory
in-instr.c:16:24: linux/mpls.h: No such file or directory
make: *** [in-instr.o] Error 1
I TRY this bellow solution without successfull!
1031 mkdir /usr/src/zebra/linux
1032 cp -p /usr/src/linux/include/linux/mpls.h /usr/src/zebra/linux
1033 make clean
1034 make all > make_2.log 2>&1
1035 cat make_2.log=20
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_fib.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_ifmgr.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_lock.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_mm.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_mpls.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_policy.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_socket.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_timer.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c impl_tree.c
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSCONFDIR=3D\"/usr/local/etc/\" -I.. -I.. -I../lib =
-g -O2 -Wall -c in-instr.c
in-instr.c: In function `do_mplsd_in_instr':
in-instr.c:102: warning: passing arg 2 of `mos2ml' from incompatible pointer=
type
in-instr.c:117: `SIOCSMPLSININSTR' undeclared (first use in this function)
in-instr.c:117: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
in-instr.c:117: for each function it appears in.)
make: *** [in-instr.o] Error 1
Do you know what's the problem?
Cheers,=20
Morvan.
At 11:33 11/06/2002 -0500, James R. Leu wrote:
>The problem you are seeing (LSP setup in one direction) is a know
>problem. I'm working on a fix in the zebra<->ldp-portable version
>(grab it from CVS to see the progress thus far)
>
>Jim
>
>On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:20:42AM -0300, Morvan Daniel M=FCller wrote:
>> Hello all!
>>=20
>> I want to make ldp-linux work for this simple testbed:
>>=20
>> My testbed configuration is:
>> hostA LERA CORE LERB hostB
>> 10.1.0.2/24----10.1.0.1/24 10.2.1.1/24----10.2.1.2/24
>> 10.1.1.2/24-----10.1.1.1/24 10.2.0.1/24----10.2.0.2/24 =20
>>=20
>> I'am using only host static routes to make hostA and hostB are reacheable=
to each other.
>> Static Routes added at:
>> LERA:
>> route add 10.2.1.2/32 gw 10.1.0.1
>> LERB:
>> route add 10.1.1.2/32 gw 10.2.0.1
>> CORE:
>> route add 10.1.1.2/32 gw 10.1.0.2
>> route add 10.2.1.2/32 gw 10.2.0.2
>> =20
>> For tests I use the command "traceroute" with:
>> IP_only (ip_forwarding)
>> LDP: "mpls-adm" and "ldp-linux".
>>=20
>> I were Waiting this Results:
>> traceroute -n from hostA to host B: may show 4 hops with standard IP, an=
3 hops with LDP (mpls_adm or ldp_linux).
>>=20
>> For IP (ip_forwarding only) it's ok - 4 hops.
>> For LDP using "mpls_adm" it's ok - 3 hops
>> For LDP using "ldp_linux" IT NEVER WORK!!!!!!!!!!=20
>> =20
>> I see that "ldp_linux" only create the LSP for one direction (from A to=
B)!
>> Like documentation "ldp_linux" create LSPs basead on the L3 information=
(so, static routes created above should result in LSPs created in two=
directions)!
>>=20
>> I follow README.sample commands, but for the sample environment it too=
don't work!=20
>>=20
>> If some one in this mailing list had sucessfull configured "ldp_linux" in=
such environment
>> or like README.sample and the LSPs are dinamically create for two=
directions, please let me know!
>>=20
>> Morvan.
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________________________
>>=20
>> Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
>> August 25-28 in Las Vegas -=
http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=3Dosdntextlink
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls-linux-general mailing list
>> mpl...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general
>
>--=20
>James R. Leu
>
|
|
From: <han...@ya...> - 2002-06-13 12:06:13
|
I use three computers to make a mpls environment. every computer have two etherent cards. when using ldp_linux to set up a LSP, I dont know how to configure "add global <ip for lsrid>". which ip address should i use? for example: LSRA(eth0)--(eth0)LSRB(eth1)--(eth0)LSRC LSRA: (eth1)192.168.0.1, 192.169.0.1(eth0) LSRB: (eth0)192.169.0.2, 192.170.0.1(eth1) LSRC: (eth0)192.170.0.2, 192.171.0.1(eth1) LSRB: add global? eth0 or eth1 ip address? what about LSRA & LSRC ? thanks Best Regards Aileen Han ===== Best Regards Aileen Han _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? 2002年世界杯群雄鏖战 雅虎中国聚焦日韩 http://cn.fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: <ale...@re...> - 2002-06-11 19:32:58
|
Hi, I'm trying to compile the file 'rtap_cmds.c' And I'm receiving the folowing mesage because of line 1005 too few arguments to function 'rapi_reserve' Can anyone help me resolving my problem? Alexandre |
|
From: Igor V. <ch...@fl...> - 2002-06-11 18:51:18
|
Hello,
I've tried out several modes of operation for ldp-linux and I'm having some
rather problematic results.
The setup I used was:
LER1---------------------LSR1---------------------LER2
192.168.20.200 192.168.20.201 192.168.19.206
192.168.19.204
All machines mpls-linux 0.996 patched kernel 2.4.12, ldp-portable CVS (a few
weeks ago)
Firstly, when I changed from Downstream Unsolicited to Downstream on Demand
mode, after adding global and interface, ldp crashes. I browsed through
mailing list archives and found Amish Verna's message from 2002-04-11, the
same thing happened to him but there was no reply. Is there a solution to
this problem?
Another thing I tried was testing whether ldp really works in Ordered
control mode, as the default is Ordered, but I found that it is not so. It
behaves as if it works in Independent mode! Let me explain my test:
In the setup above, the routing was:
LER1:
route add -host 192.168.20.201 gw 192.168.20.201
route add -host 192.168.19.203 gw 192.168.20.201
LSR1:
route add 192.168.20.200 gw 192.168.20.200
route add 192.168.19.206 gw 192.168.19.206
route add 192.168.19.203 gw 192.168.19.206
LER2:
route add 192.168.19.204 gw 192.168.19.204
The LDP session was first setup between LSR1 and LER2. After that the LDP
session was setup between LSR1 and LER1.
Note that 192.168.19.203 is a *fictional* FEC for which the LER1, when
working in the Independent mode, should get a label for, from the LSR1.
But when working in the Ordered mode, the LSR1 *must not* send any labels to
LER1 for a FEC 192.168.19.203 since LER2, the next hop LSR for that FEC
(from LSR1's point of view) didn't yet send labels for that FEC. (It didn't
send and it won't send because I never added that route in the routing
table, on purpose).
But, I noticed a label mapping message originated from LSR1 to LER1 with a
label for a FEC 192.168.19.203.
(I grabbed it with Ethereal, and can present it if neccessary).
The result on LER1:
voip5:/home/igor# cat /proc/net/mpls_fec
40005403 192.168.19.203/32
40006003 192.168.20.201/32
voip5:/home/igor# cat /proc/net/mpls_out
40005403 0/0/0 PUSH(gen 21) SET(lec0,192.168.20.201)
40006003 102/6222/0 PUSH(gen 24) SET(lec0,192.168.20.201)
According to RFC3036:
" When using LSP ordered control, an LSR may initiate the transmission
of a label mapping only for a FEC for which it has a label mapping
for the FEC next hop, or for which the LSR is the egress. For each
FEC for which the LSR is not the egress and no mapping exists, the
LSR MUST wait until a label from a downstream LSR is received before
mapping the FEC and passing corresponding labels to upstream LSRs."
Is LSR1 the Egress for a FEC 192.168.19.203?
According to RFC3036:
" An LSR may act as an egress LSR, with respect to a particular FEC,
under any of the following conditions:
1. The FEC refers to the LSR itself (including one of its directly
attached interfaces).
2. The next hop router for the FEC is outside of the Label
Switching Network.
3. FEC elements are reachable by crossing a routing domain
boundary, such as another area for OSPF summary networks, or
another autonomous system for OSPF AS externals and BGP routes"
Obviously none of the 1,2, or 3 applies. Therefore the LSR1 is not the
egress for that particular FEC, and it didn't yet receive the mapping from
the FEC next hop. It shouldn't have sent the label mapping message.
According to the RFC, the fact that LSR1 works in Unsolicited label
distribution mode, doesn't change above facts; It only means the LSR1 is
responsible for sending labels upstream to the LER1, (doesn't wait for the
label request from LER1); In Downstream on Demand mode, the LER1 would be
responsible for those labels (by sending label request messages to LSR1).
Sincerely,
Igor Vukomanovic
P.S.
Some additional info :
On LSR1, the result was also OK :
voip4:/# cat /proc/net/mpls_out
40004402 72/4560/0 PUSH(gen 17) SET(eth0,192.168.19.206)
40004803 38/2681/0 PUSH(gen 18) SET(lec0,192.168.20.200)
voip4:/# cat /proc/net/mpls_fec
40004402 192.168.19.206/32
40004803 192.168.20.200/32
However, on LER2 there were no out labels or fec's. I guess this is the
known problem of one-way LSP Morvan Daniel Muller and some other people
encountered. However, if I add:
route add -host 192.168.20.200 gw 192.168.19.204
on LER2, it would create an out label for the FEC 192.168.20.200 ! (still no
labels for 192.168.19.204 though).
(Just a piece of curious information).
|
|
From: James R. L. <jl...@mi...> - 2002-06-11 15:31:56
|
The problem you are seeing (LSP setup in one direction) is a know problem. I'm working on a fix in the zebra<->ldp-portable version (grab it from CVS to see the progress thus far) Jim On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:20:42AM -0300, Morvan Daniel M=FCller wrote: > Hello all! >=20 > I want to make ldp-linux work for this simple testbed: >=20 > My testbed configuration is: > hostA LERA CORE LERB hostB > 10.1.0.2/24----10.1.0.1/24 10.2.1.1/24----10.2.1.2/2= 4 > 10.1.1.2/24-----10.1.1.1/24 10.2.0.1/24----10.2.0.2/24 =20 >=20 > I'am using only host static routes to make hostA and hostB are reacheab= le to each other. > Static Routes added at: > LERA: > route add 10.2.1.2/32 gw 10.1.0.1 > LERB: > route add 10.1.1.2/32 gw 10.2.0.1 > CORE: > route add 10.1.1.2/32 gw 10.1.0.2 > route add 10.2.1.2/32 gw 10.2.0.2 > =20 > For tests I use the command "traceroute" with: > IP_only (ip_forwarding) > LDP: "mpls-adm" and "ldp-linux". >=20 > I were Waiting this Results: > traceroute -n from hostA to host B: may show 4 hops with standard IP, a= n 3 hops with LDP (mpls_adm or ldp_linux). >=20 > For IP (ip_forwarding only) it's ok - 4 hops. > For LDP using "mpls_adm" it's ok - 3 hops > For LDP using "ldp_linux" IT NEVER WORK!!!!!!!!!!=20 > =20 > I see that "ldp_linux" only create the LSP for one direction (from A to= B)! > Like documentation "ldp_linux" create LSPs basead on the L3 information= (so, static routes created above should result in LSPs created in two di= rections)! >=20 > I follow README.sample commands, but for the sample environment it too = don't work!=20 >=20 > If some one in this mailing list had sucessfull configured "ldp_linux" = in such environment > or like README.sample and the LSPs are dinamically create for two direc= tions, please let me know! >=20 > Morvan. >=20 > _______________________________________________________________ >=20 > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?s= ource=3Dosdntextlink >=20 > _______________________________________________ > mpls-linux-general mailing list > mpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general --=20 James R. Leu |
|
From: Morvan D. <mo...@so...> - 2002-06-11 04:18:40
|
Hello all!
I want to make ldp-linux work for this simple testbed:
My testbed configuration is:
hostA LERA CORE LERB hostB
10.1.0.2/24----10.1.0.1/24 10.2.1.1/24----10.2.1.2/24
10.1.1.2/24-----10.1.1.1/24 10.2.0.1/24----10.2.0.2/24
I'am using only host static routes to make hostA and hostB are reacheable to each other.
Static Routes added at:
LERA:
route add 10.2.1.2/32 gw 10.1.0.1
LERB:
route add 10.1.1.2/32 gw 10.2.0.1
CORE:
route add 10.1.1.2/32 gw 10.1.0.2
route add 10.2.1.2/32 gw 10.2.0.2
For tests I use the command "traceroute" with:
IP_only (ip_forwarding)
LDP: "mpls-adm" and "ldp-linux".
I were Waiting this Results:
traceroute -n from hostA to host B: may show 4 hops with standard IP, an 3 hops with LDP (mpls_adm or ldp_linux).
For IP (ip_forwarding only) it's ok - 4 hops.
For LDP using "mpls_adm" it's ok - 3 hops
For LDP using "ldp_linux" IT NEVER WORK!!!!!!!!!!
I see that "ldp_linux" only create the LSP for one direction (from A to B)!
Like documentation "ldp_linux" create LSPs basead on the L3 information (so, static routes created above should result in LSPs created in two directions)!
I follow README.sample commands, but for the sample environment it too don't work!
If some one in this mailing list had sucessfull configured "ldp_linux" in such environment
or like README.sample and the LSPs are dinamically create for two directions, please let me know!
Morvan.
|
|
From: Sumeet A. <sum...@ho...> - 2002-06-09 19:28:06
|
Folks, I am trying to implement 'Graceful Restart Mechanism for LDP' (draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-restart-01.txt) on the MPLS-Linux kernel. This document describes a mechanism that helps to minimize the negative effects on MPLS traffic caused by LSR's control plane restart, and specifically by the restart of its LDP component, on LSRs that are capable of preserving the MPLS forwarding component across the restart. Could someone tell me if the latest version of the MPLS-Linux kernel, is capable for implementation of this idea. Specifically, is it possible that the Control plane alone could be restarted for an LSR. Any help on this will be highly appreciated. Best regards. -Sumeet _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com |
|
From: Javier S. L. <sj...@te...> - 2002-06-05 13:03:46
|
El mi=E9, 05-06-2002 a las 14:59, Javier Sanchez Llera escribi=F3: > El mi=E9, 05-06-2002 a las 14:32, farahmand zahra escribi=F3: > > Hi jim n all, > >=20 > > When I enter "show database" in ldp_linux,I can see > > prompt>show database > >=20 > > 1 0a000001/32 3 via 2 > > 2 c0a80200/24 3 via 2 > > 3 0a000002/32 2 via 2 > > 4 c0a80200/24 2 via 2=20 > >=20 > > I don't underestand what do they mean?I need your > > help. > > I have another question: > > can you give me some description about this line in > > /proc/net/mpls_out: > > 40004002 0/0/0 PUSH(gen 16) SET(eth0,192.168.2.207). >=20 > To any packet coming from 192.168.2.207 on eth0 device, a generic label > with id 16 will be added. >=20 > > and this line in /proc/net/mpls_in: > > 400044c00 0/0/0 gen 19 0 POP FWD (40004c02) I forgot something label 19 will be taken out of the label stack, maybe rule 40004c02 will process any other reamining labels in the stack > Any incoming packet with label 19 will be forwarded to modifier or label > rule 40004c02. Im not really sure if 40004c02 refers to another rule cos > another rule should appear on mpls_in or out. >=20 > Maybe im wrong of course ;-)))) >=20 > Javier Sanchez Llera > sj...@te... >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > Thanks in advance. > >=20 > > Best regards, > > Zahra Farahmand. > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > >=20 > > _______________________________________________________________ > >=20 > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > mpls-linux-general mailing list > > mpl...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________________________ >=20 > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm >=20 > _______________________________________________ > mpls-linux-general mailing list > mpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general |
|
From: Javier S. L. <sj...@te...> - 2002-06-05 12:57:54
|
El mi=E9, 05-06-2002 a las 14:32, farahmand zahra escribi=F3: > Hi jim n all, >=20 > When I enter "show database" in ldp_linux,I can see > prompt>show database >=20 > 1 0a000001/32 3 via 2 > 2 c0a80200/24 3 via 2 > 3 0a000002/32 2 via 2 > 4 c0a80200/24 2 via 2=20 >=20 > I don't underestand what do they mean?I need your > help. > I have another question: > can you give me some description about this line in > /proc/net/mpls_out: > 40004002 0/0/0 PUSH(gen 16) SET(eth0,192.168.2.207). To any packet coming from 192.168.2.207 on eth0 device, a generic label with id 16 will be added. > and this line in /proc/net/mpls_in: > 400044c00 0/0/0 gen 19 0 POP FWD (40004c02) Any incoming packet with label 19 will be forwarded to modifier or label rule 40004c02. Im not really sure if 40004c02 refers to another rule cos another rule should appear on mpls_in or out. Maybe im wrong of course ;-)))) Javier Sanchez Llera sj...@te... > Thanks in advance. >=20 > Best regards, > Zahra Farahmand. >=20 >=20 >=20 > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >=20 > _______________________________________________________________ >=20 > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm >=20 > _______________________________________________ > mpls-linux-general mailing list > mpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general |
|
From: farahmand z. <z_c...@ya...> - 2002-06-05 12:32:04
|
Hi jim n all, When I enter "show database" in ldp_linux,I can see prompt>show database 1 0a000001/32 3 via 2 2 c0a80200/24 3 via 2 3 0a000002/32 2 via 2 4 c0a80200/24 2 via 2 I don't underestand what do they mean?I need your help. I have another question: can you give me some description about this line in /proc/net/mpls_out: 40004002 0/0/0 PUSH(gen 16) SET(eth0,192.168.2.207). and this line in /proc/net/mpls_in: 400044c00 0/0/0 gen 19 0 POP FWD (40004c02) Thanks in advance. Best regards, Zahra Farahmand. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com |
|
From: Javier S. L. <sj...@te...> - 2002-06-04 11:06:04
|
Hi all, im making some test with 2 pcs acting as lsr, and with mpls support enabled, and all the tools compiled and working (mplsadm - ldp_linux). I set up 1 label in each computer, and add the IN entry on both with each label , i mena: LSR1 - 192.168.0.4 mplsadm -d mplsadm -A -B -O gen:2614:eth0:ipv4:192.168.0.5 -f 192.168.0.5 mplsadm -A -I gen:1234:0 mplsadm -L eth0:0 LSR2 - 192.168.0.5 mplsadm -d mplsadm -A -B -O gen:1234:eth0:ipv4:192.168.0.4 -f 192.168.0.4 mplsadm -A -I gen:2614:0 mplsadm -L eth0:0 Then i started ethereal, and make some ftps and ping to generate some traffic but ethereal shows no mpls traffic. i see normal tcp traffic,=20 acks , dns querys ... but no mpls packet ??? What am i doing wrong ????? TIA for your attention Javier Sanchez Llera sj...@te... P.D. The only messages on syslog are from LSR2, maybe somwone can see here clues of wahts wrong, mpls wrote a lines there complaining about he cant find FIB_NODE =BF?=BF?=BF? Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_add_out_label: enter Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_make_dst: enter Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_make_dst: before bind neighbor Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_make_dst: bind neighbor succeeded Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_make_dst: exit(d9a575c0) Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_info_default_moi_instruction: enter Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_info_default_moi_instruction: exit Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: Label GEN 1234 Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: Key GEN 1234 2 Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_add_out_label: exit Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_prep_out2fec: enter Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: Label GEN 1234 Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: Key GEN 1234 2 Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_fill_key_res: enter Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_fill_key_res: exit Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_bind_out2fec: couldn't find the FIB_NODE(0) Jun 4 12:52:33 rex kernel: mpls_bind_out2fec: exit Jun 4 12:52:50 rex kernel: mpls_add_in_label: enter Jun 4 12:52:50 rex kernel: mpls_info_default_in_instruction: enter Jun 4 12:52:50 rex kernel: mpls_info_default_in_instruction: exit Jun 4 12:52:50 rex kernel: mpls_add_in_label: exit Jun 4 12:53:31 rex kernel: mpls_set_labelspace: enter Jun 4 12:53:31 rex kernel: mpls_set_labelspace: labelspace(0) Jun 4 12:53:31 rex kernel: mpls_set_labelspace: exit Jun 4 12:54:09 rex kernel: device eth0 left promiscuous mode Jun 4 12:56:37 rex kernel: mpls_set_labelspace: enter Jun 4 12:56:37 rex kernel: mpls_set_labelspace: labelspace(0) Jun 4 12:56:37 rex kernel: mpls_set_labelspace: exit Jun 4 12:57:07 rex kernel: eth0: Promiscuous mode enabled. Jun 4 12:57:07 rex kernel: device eth0 entered promiscuous mode Jun 4 12:57:11 rex identd[4490]: started Jun 4 12:57:17 rex kernel: device eth0 left promiscuous mode Jun 4 12:58:20 rex kernel: eth0: Promiscuous mode enabled. Jun 4 12:58:20 rex kernel: device eth0 entered promiscuous mode Jun 4 12:58:23 rex kernel: device eth0 left promiscuous mode |
|
From: <xia...@no...> - 2002-05-30 06:55:48
|
Hi! there! I would comment that the real benefit of MPLS is its Traffic Engineering = capabilities, e.g. MPLS Constraint Based Routing. If the load balancing feature is implemented, then MPLS could utilise = much better the network resources, therefore the advantage of MPLS vs. = plain IP could be obvious. In addition, IP routing is part of the control component of MPLS. = Without TE application, the advantage of MPLS vs. IP is nearly nothing, = theoretically.=20 That is my understanding. Best wishes! -- Ben -----Original Message----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --------- To: mpl...@li... Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:25:20 -0700 From: "venda y" <vy...@ly...> Reply-To: vy...@ly... Organization: Lycos Mail (http://www.mail.lycos.com:80) Subject: [mpls-linux-general] really - really need help Hi all, We are working on mpls for our final project and we have installed = mpls-linux-1.0 in 4 PCs successfully using red hat 7.2, kernel 2.4.7, = and 3com NIC. As we knew that mpls work better than ip if the network = busy. But until now our ip work better than mpls. Our topology : Host A - LER A --- LSR A --- LSR B ---- LER A --- Host B First we use clean network, and we ping host B from host A, and the = result IP better than MPLS. Second, we generate trafik (we use mtools that made by Stefano Avallone = - thanx Stefano) in LER A to LSR A in order to make the network a little = bit crowded, than we ping host B from host A and still IP better than = MPLS. Third we generate trafik from LER A to LSR A and LER B to LSR B to make = the network more crowded, than we ping host B from host A still IP = better than MPLS. So, can anyone told us how to show that MPLS is better than IP ? what = make mpls-linux different than IP (or better than IP) ? Because our purpose to work on it is to prove that MPLS is better than = IP Thank you very much, and we waiting for any suggestion and advice Venda, amiek, andy ________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL = PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=3Dplus --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:37:15 +0200 (MET DST) From: Igor Vukomanovic <ch...@fl...> To: mpl...@li... Subject: Re: [mpls-linux-general] really - really need help Hi there, We're doing almost exactly the same thing. We've tested it on LER1-LSR-LER2 configuration, kernel 2.4.17, mpls 1.128 (which seems to = be working much faster than mpls 0.996). We have overloaded the LSR with some additional traffic, and measured = the packet loss, burst UDP traffic from LER1 to LER2. We have found that = MPLS packets are routed faster than IP packets, but only for some packet load sizes (about 40-80 bytes and 500-1440bytes). For all other cases IP was faster. The maximum speed at which the burst traffic is sent depends on the packet size as well (about 10Mbit/s for 1 byte load size, approaching 100Mbit/s for 1000+ bytes load size); MPLS packets are sent somewhat slower than normal IP pakcets, but slower for *all* cases (so we guess that doesn't really explain the confusing results at MPLS vs. IP packet loss). We're still waiting for James' opinion on this. In the meantime, we have tried the new LDP patch for mpls 1.128. We have managed to patch and compile it but the cvs version of ldp-portable = seems to contain typos! In ldp-linux.c file there are several occurances of "ntohul" function calls. We couldn't find such a function anywhere, so = we changed it to "ntohl" and then it compiled properly. (!) But, still something's wrong with it. We've tried to test it on a simple LSR-LSR configuration but the session deletes soon after it's = established: prompt>add global 192.168.19.205 Adding interface lo Adding interface eth0 Adding route 192.168.19.204/32 via 2 Adding route 192.168.19.0/24 via 2 Adding route 0.0.0.0/0 via 2 Adding route 192.168.19.205/32 via 1 Adding global object with LSRID c0a813cd prompt>add interface eth0 Adding interface eth0 prompt>TCP connect Adding in label: 16=20 Adding in label: 17=20 Adding out label: 17 key: 0x5 if_index: 2 Binding FEC: 192.168.19.204/32 to label: 17 key: 0x5 Deleting in label: 16 Deleting in label: 17 Unbinding FEC: 192.168.19.204/32 from label: 17 key: 0x5 Deleting out label: 17 if_index: 2 session delete ...and the strangest thing, the FEC which is displayed in the deamon = isn't the one used : voip5:/home/igor# cat /proc/net/mpls_out=20 0x00000002 7/490/0 1 PUSH(gen 17) SET(eth0,1.0.0.0)=20 0x00000003 8/560/0 1 PUSH(gen 17) SET(eth0,180.0.7.8)=20 So we're additionaly puzzled. Fortunately, the ldp-portable we grabbed with cvs in April works fine with 2.4.12 and mpls-linux-1.0. Hopefully someone can shed some light on this?=20 Thanks in advance Igor Vukomanovic Zeljan Sudeta > Hi all, > We are working on mpls for our final project and we have installed = mpls-linux-1.0 in 4 PCs successfully using red hat 7.2, kernel 2.4.7, = and 3com NIC. As we knew that mpls work better than ip if the network = busy. But until now our ip work better than mpls. > Our topology : >=20 > Host A - LER A --- LSR A --- LSR B ---- LER A --- Host B >=20 > First we use clean network, and we ping host B from host A, and the = result IP better than MPLS. > Second, we generate trafik (we use mtools that made by Stefano = Avallone - thanx Stefano) in LER A to LSR A in order to make the network = a little bit crowded, than we ping host B from host A and still IP = better than MPLS. > Third we generate trafik from LER A to LSR A and LER B to LSR B to = make the network more crowded, than we ping host B from host A still IP = better than MPLS. >=20 > So, can anyone told us how to show that MPLS is better than IP ? what = make mpls-linux different than IP (or better than IP) ? > Because our purpose to work on it is to prove that MPLS is better than = IP >=20 > Thank you very much, and we waiting for any suggestion and advice >=20 > Venda, amiek, andy --__--__-- _______________________________________________ mpls-linux-general mailing list mpl...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general End of mpls-linux-general Digest |
|
From: Yon U. <hav...@gm...> - 2002-05-29 22:08:40
|
Hi,
On Tue, 28 May 2002, venda y wrote:
[snip]
> So, can anyone told us how to show that MPLS is better than IP ?
I'll assume Better == faster forwarding.
Why? What makes you think so?
In theory looking up a label could be *implemented* faster than looking
up a route. But, repeating myself, it is *implementation* dependant.
Actual implementations (for example network processors) will have
different delays for each operation, including the faster, slower and
equal delay case, and that might change for different network
element states and input conditions (as you are actully testing).
In theory mpls-linux could implement switching a mpls packet in way
that makes that operation faster than vanilla linux ip routing. In
practice you just measured that this is not the case for all packet
sizes. The performance of the whole system is dependant on other factors,
like network cards/drivers (and interrupt handling (NAPI), which
*could* be protocol independent).
> what
> make mpls-linux different than IP (or better than IP) ?
The forwarding path is not (necessarily) bound to the IP forwarding path.
There are implicit (LSP)-tunnels allowing new network features (l2&l3
vpn, etc.).
> Because our
> purpose to work on it is to prove that MPLS is better than IP
Define better (in more than one word ("faster" (faster *what*?, under
what conditions?))).
SCNR
yon
|
|
From: Igor V. <ch...@fl...> - 2002-05-29 11:37:23
|
Hi there, We're doing almost exactly the same thing. We've tested it on LER1-LSR-LER2 configuration, kernel 2.4.17, mpls 1.128 (which seems to be working much faster than mpls 0.996). We have overloaded the LSR with some additional traffic, and measured the packet loss, burst UDP traffic from LER1 to LER2. We have found that MPLS packets are routed faster than IP packets, but only for some packet load sizes (about 40-80 bytes and 500-1440bytes). For all other cases IP was faster. The maximum speed at which the burst traffic is sent depends on the packet size as well (about 10Mbit/s for 1 byte load size, approaching 100Mbit/s for 1000+ bytes load size); MPLS packets are sent somewhat slower than normal IP pakcets, but slower for *all* cases (so we guess that doesn't really explain the confusing results at MPLS vs. IP packet loss). We're still waiting for James' opinion on this. In the meantime, we have tried the new LDP patch for mpls 1.128. We have managed to patch and compile it but the cvs version of ldp-portable seems to contain typos! In ldp-linux.c file there are several occurances of "ntohul" function calls. We couldn't find such a function anywhere, so we changed it to "ntohl" and then it compiled properly. (!) But, still something's wrong with it. We've tried to test it on a simple LSR-LSR configuration but the session deletes soon after it's established: prompt>add global 192.168.19.205 Adding interface lo Adding interface eth0 Adding route 192.168.19.204/32 via 2 Adding route 192.168.19.0/24 via 2 Adding route 0.0.0.0/0 via 2 Adding route 192.168.19.205/32 via 1 Adding global object with LSRID c0a813cd prompt>add interface eth0 Adding interface eth0 prompt>TCP connect Adding in label: 16 Adding in label: 17 Adding out label: 17 key: 0x5 if_index: 2 Binding FEC: 192.168.19.204/32 to label: 17 key: 0x5 Deleting in label: 16 Deleting in label: 17 Unbinding FEC: 192.168.19.204/32 from label: 17 key: 0x5 Deleting out label: 17 if_index: 2 session delete ...and the strangest thing, the FEC which is displayed in the deamon isn't the one used : voip5:/home/igor# cat /proc/net/mpls_out 0x00000002 7/490/0 1 PUSH(gen 17) SET(eth0,1.0.0.0) 0x00000003 8/560/0 1 PUSH(gen 17) SET(eth0,180.0.7.8) So we're additionaly puzzled. Fortunately, the ldp-portable we grabbed with cvs in April works fine with 2.4.12 and mpls-linux-1.0. Hopefully someone can shed some light on this? Thanks in advance Igor Vukomanovic Zeljan Sudeta > Hi all, > We are working on mpls for our final project and we have installed mpls-linux-1.0 in 4 PCs successfully using red hat 7.2, kernel 2.4.7, and 3com NIC. As we knew that mpls work better than ip if the network busy. But until now our ip work better than mpls. > Our topology : > > Host A - LER A --- LSR A --- LSR B ---- LER A --- Host B > > First we use clean network, and we ping host B from host A, and the result IP better than MPLS. > Second, we generate trafik (we use mtools that made by Stefano Avallone - thanx Stefano) in LER A to LSR A in order to make the network a little bit crowded, than we ping host B from host A and still IP better than MPLS. > Third we generate trafik from LER A to LSR A and LER B to LSR B to make the network more crowded, than we ping host B from host A still IP better than MPLS. > > So, can anyone told us how to show that MPLS is better than IP ? what make mpls-linux different than IP (or better than IP) ? > Because our purpose to work on it is to prove that MPLS is better than IP > > Thank you very much, and we waiting for any suggestion and advice > > Venda, amiek, andy |
|
From: venda y <vy...@ly...> - 2002-05-29 03:25:40
|
Hi all, We are working on mpls for our final project and we have installed mpls-linux-1.0 in 4 PCs successfully using red hat 7.2, kernel 2.4.7, and 3com NIC. As we knew that mpls work better than ip if the network busy. But until now our ip work better than mpls. Our topology : Host A - LER A --- LSR A --- LSR B ---- LER A --- Host B First we use clean network, and we ping host B from host A, and the result IP better than MPLS. Second, we generate trafik (we use mtools that made by Stefano Avallone - thanx Stefano) in LER A to LSR A in order to make the network a little bit crowded, than we ping host B from host A and still IP better than MPLS. Third we generate trafik from LER A to LSR A and LER B to LSR B to make the network more crowded, than we ping host B from host A still IP better than MPLS. So, can anyone told us how to show that MPLS is better than IP ? what make mpls-linux different than IP (or better than IP) ? Because our purpose to work on it is to prove that MPLS is better than IP Thank you very much, and we waiting for any suggestion and advice Venda, amiek, andy ________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus |
533 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
