mpls-linux-general — Mailing list for general discussion about MPLS for Linux

Re: [mpls-linux-general] ldp-portable updates

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

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 01:31:11PM -0000, Venisa Cabrilla wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> Thanks for your ldp-portable updates, now I can see that mpls_in, mpls_out, 
> and mpls_fec are not empty.

Hello,

I think I know the problem.  It has to do with the fact that LDP is setting up
LSPs for too many entries in the route table.  Send me the contents of
/proc/net/mpls_* and we can verify this.

My default policy of "send labels for everything" may not be valid in all
cases.  This will be simple enough to change I just need to figure out what the
best default policy should be :-(

I'll try to duplicate this setup here and see if I can figure it out as well.

Jim

> 
> I use the simple configuration in file README.sample :
> 
>      lo 10.0.0.6                lo 10.0.0.5
>       ---------                  ---------
>      | Router2 |----------------| Router1 |
>       ---------                  ---------
>           |eth2  192.168.12.0/24     |eth1
>      ---------------------------------------
> 
> In router1:
> bash# ifconfig lo 10.0.0.5 netmask 255.255.255.255
> bash# route add 10.0.0.6 gw 192.168.12.2
> 
> >From inside ldp_linux:
> prompt> add global 10.0.0.5
> prompt> add interface eth1
> 
> In router2:
> bash# ifconfig lo 10.0.0.6 netmask 255.255.255.255
> bash# route add 10.0.0.5 gw 192.168.12.1
> 
> >From inside ldp_linux:
> prompt> add global 10.0.0.6
> prompt> add interface eth2
> 
> After that I can see that mpls_in, mpls_out, and mpls_fec in each router are 
> not empty.
> 
> Unfortunately, I cannot ping anymore router1 from router2 and router2 from 
> router1. Before I enter ldp_linux, I can ping 10.0.0.5 from router1 and ping 
> 10.0.0.6 from router2. However, I can see the MPLS encapsulation using 
> ethereal for ping request messages but there is no ping reply message.
> 
> Would you mind verify my configuration above and tell me what might be my 
> mistakes ?
> 
> 
> PS: I have to explicitly add the routes using route commands this time, 
> because if I use zebra, I cannot use ethereal (ethereal hangs).
> I still do not know the reason, it might be due to TCP/UDP conflicts.
> 
> 
> regards,
> ~Venisa Cabrilla
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "James R. Leu" <jl...@mi...>
> >Reply-To: jl...@mi...
> >To: mpl...@li...
> >Subject: [mpls-linux-general] ldp-portable updates
> >Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:23:13 -0500
> >
> >Sorry to those who have been trying to use ldp-portable from CVS.
> >I finnally have gotten around to fixing and testing ldp-portable.
> >It's almost back to where it was before I started mucking around with PDU
> >processing.  (interoping with cisco pointed out the need to handle multiple
> >PDUs per TCP segment and handle one PDU spread across multiple TCP 
> >segments)
> >
> >If you tried ldp-portable in the last 3 weeks and it was broken, try
> >updating your CVS client and giving it another go.
> >
> >Sorry for the long delay.
> >Jim
> >--
> >James R. Leu
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >mpls-linux-general mailing list
> >mpl...@li...
> >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-linux-general mailing list
> mpl...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general

-- 
James R. Leu

Re: [mpls-linux-general] ldp-portable updates

[Venisa C. <vca...@ho...>]

Hi James,

Thanks for your ldp-portable updates, now I can see that mpls_in, mpls_out, 
and mpls_fec are not empty.

I use the simple configuration in file README.sample :

     lo 10.0.0.6                lo 10.0.0.5
      ---------                  ---------
     | Router2 |----------------| Router1 |
      ---------                  ---------
          |eth2  192.168.12.0/24     |eth1
     ---------------------------------------

In router1:
bash# ifconfig lo 10.0.0.5 netmask 255.255.255.255
bash# route add 10.0.0.6 gw 192.168.12.2

From inside ldp_linux:
prompt> add global 10.0.0.5
prompt> add interface eth1

In router2:
bash# ifconfig lo 10.0.0.6 netmask 255.255.255.255
bash# route add 10.0.0.5 gw 192.168.12.1

From inside ldp_linux:
prompt> add global 10.0.0.6
prompt> add interface eth2

After that I can see that mpls_in, mpls_out, and mpls_fec in each router are 
not empty.

Unfortunately, I cannot ping anymore router1 from router2 and router2 from 
router1. Before I enter ldp_linux, I can ping 10.0.0.5 from router1 and ping 
10.0.0.6 from router2. However, I can see the MPLS encapsulation using 
ethereal for ping request messages but there is no ping reply message.

Would you mind verify my configuration above and tell me what might be my 
mistakes ?


PS: I have to explicitly add the routes using route commands this time, 
because if I use zebra, I cannot use ethereal (ethereal hangs).
I still do not know the reason, it might be due to TCP/UDP conflicts.


regards,
~Venisa Cabrilla



>From: "James R. Leu" <jl...@mi...>
>Reply-To: jl...@mi...
>To: mpl...@li...
>Subject: [mpls-linux-general] ldp-portable updates
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:23:13 -0500
>
>Sorry to those who have been trying to use ldp-portable from CVS.
>I finnally have gotten around to fixing and testing ldp-portable.
>It's almost back to where it was before I started mucking around with PDU
>processing.  (interoping with cisco pointed out the need to handle multiple
>PDUs per TCP segment and handle one PDU spread across multiple TCP 
>segments)
>
>If you tried ldp-portable in the last 3 weeks and it was broken, try
>updating your CVS client and giving it another go.
>
>Sorry for the long delay.
>Jim
>--
>James R. Leu
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls-linux-general mailing list
>mpl...@li...
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[mpls-linux-general] about tunneling.

[Srinivas R. <ls...@tr...>]

hello all ,

	i am getting confussion about tunneling. practically in which case we get 
tunneling. when we get tunneling we have to send Targetted Hello only(please 
correct me if i am wrong). Can some body guide me in which cases we will 
create tunnel especially in the case if we use BGP .

thanks in advance 
regards
lsr

Re: [mpls-linux-general] MPLS packet capture

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

On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 04:44:29PM +0530, JK Swamy wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have configured mpls-linux-0.993 on linux kernel 2.4.5 . I have configured
> two machines

Unfortunately there is a known issue with capturing MPLS packets on
an LER.  Although you should have atleast seen some weird looking ones, if
they are all coming out IP, then something is not working right for you.

So lets verify that MPLS forwarding is occuring first.

(everything I mention below is specific to this setup, I could generalize
but that would make the description more difficult)

Look at /proc/net/mpls_fec is should have (in hex) the IP address of the 
peer. (On A you should see the address for B and on B you should see the
address for A).  In front of the address you should see a hex number.  That
hex number is the 'key' for the out label you've installed.  If you don't
see this information, they that means there is no way for the IP stack to
sent packets to the MPLS stack.

If this info looks right then lets turn to the debugging info.
Turn on MPLS kernel debugging by doing a 'mplsadm -d' (if you do it a second
time it will turn off MPLS kernel debugging). Start sending some packets
via ping.  Stop the ping and look at the output for 'dmesg'.  If you see
info about mpls_output or pushing labels or mpls_input, that means packets
are making it to the MPLS layer.

Lets stop there.  Let me know the results.

Jim

> **************************************************************************
> 
>                                 Manual LSP beteen 2 hosts
>                          ---------------------------
> 
> Setup
> -----
>  ---------             ---------
>  |   A   |             |           |        B         |
>  ---------             ---------
>      |eth0                 |eth0
>      |17.130               |18.114
> -----------------------------------
>          128.104.16.0/22
> 
> Config
> ------
> On A:
>   route add -host B gw B
>   mplsadm -A -B -O gen:16:eth0:ipv4:B -f B/32
>   mplsadm -A -I gen:17:0
> 
> On B:
>   route add -host A gw A
>   mplsadm -A -B -O gen:17:eth0:ipv4:A -f A/32
>   mplsadm -A -I gen:16:0
> 
> On both:
>   mplsadm -L eth0:0
> 
> Now all traffic with destination address of A or B use the LSP.
> 
> I************************************************************************
> 
> I need to use Ethereal 0.8.18 to capture MPLS packets emanating between A and B
> nodes.
> Can anybody tell me why I am not able to see MPLS packets though I am  running
> " ethereal " or "tethereal".
> 
> Yaah ... when I run "mplsadm -d " I am able to see the messages ... but not
> able to make out much from it.
> In /proc/net/mpls_* labeling is ok.
> 
> I would appreciate Ur suggestions.......
> 
> Cheers !!
> --jkswamy
> 
> *********************************
> jkswamy
> Sr. Telecom consultant
> Velankani Information Systems
> ks...@ve...
> ********************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Velankani Information Systems Ltd, Bangalore, India
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-linux-general mailing list
> mpl...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general

-- 
James R. Leu

[mpls-linux-general] MPLS packet capture

[JK S. <ks...@ve...>]

Hi all,
I have configured mpls-linux-0.993 on linux kernel 2.4.5 . I have configured
two machines

**************************************************************************

                                Manual LSP beteen 2 hosts
                         ---------------------------

Setup
-----
 ---------             ---------
 |   A   |             |           |        B         |
 ---------             ---------
     |eth0                 |eth0
     |17.130               |18.114
-----------------------------------
         128.104.16.0/22

Config
------
On A:
  route add -host B gw B
  mplsadm -A -B -O gen:16:eth0:ipv4:B -f B/32
  mplsadm -A -I gen:17:0

On B:
  route add -host A gw A
  mplsadm -A -B -O gen:17:eth0:ipv4:A -f A/32
  mplsadm -A -I gen:16:0

On both:
  mplsadm -L eth0:0

Now all traffic with destination address of A or B use the LSP.

I************************************************************************

I need to use Ethereal 0.8.18 to capture MPLS packets emanating between A and B
nodes.
Can anybody tell me why I am not able to see MPLS packets though I am  running
" ethereal " or "tethereal".

Yaah ... when I run "mplsadm -d " I am able to see the messages ... but not
able to make out much from it.
In /proc/net/mpls_* labeling is ok.

I would appreciate Ur suggestions.......

Cheers !!
--jkswamy

*********************************
jkswamy
Sr. Telecom consultant
Velankani Information Systems
ks...@ve...
********************************








~


--------------------------------------------------------------
Velankani Information Systems Ltd, Bangalore, India

Re: [mpls-linux-general] Re: MPLS-Linux

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

On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 02:08:43AM +0500, Saeed Akhter wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Thanks for you reply, can you please clarify following as well;
> 
> 1- When you say that there is some bug in mplsadm commands, does it mean all 
> commands or only few ? if so, which ones?

After looking at the code, it looks like it should work.  As far as 
know commands that are broken?  If I knew they were broken I would
fix them ;-)

> 2- Am I right in understanding LSP hierarchy as sending multiple labels in 
> the same packet or is it multiple labels in the same tunnel ? please 
> clarify.

Your statments mean about the same thing.

First, tunnel == LSP and LSP == tunnel.  MPLS tunnels were invented by Cisco
to make integration of MPLS into there routers easier, the usage of it has
proliferated to RFC and other documents in such away as to confuse people.

If you have LSP hierarchy you will have and LSP in which one of its hops is
an LSP.  As the packets traverse that hop of the outer LSP they will have two
labels.

   

   A --------- B ----------- C ---------- D ---------- E

               <----------- 100 ----------> (inner LSP)

   <----------------------- 200 ----------------------->  (outer LSP)

In this example:
-the inner LSP must be setup prior to the outer LSPs setup
-if the outer LSP was being setup via signalling (RSVP-TE or CR-LDP)
 the hop list for the outer LSP would be A B D E.  LSR C would not participate
 in the siganlling of the outer LSP, and would not even know of the existence
 of label 200
-as far as C is concerned it is only label switching packets for LSP 100
-packets traversing C would have 2 labels 100 on the top and 200 (with bos bit)
 on the bottom

If you need more clarification RFC 3031 does a good job of explaining
LSP hierarchy.

Jim
-- 
James R. Leu

[mpls-linux-general] ldp-portable updates

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

Sorry to those who have been trying to use ldp-portable from CVS.
I finnally have gotten around to fixing and testing ldp-portable.
It's almost back to where it was before I started mucking around with PDU
processing.  (interoping with cisco pointed out the need to handle multiple
PDUs per TCP segment and handle one PDU spread across multiple TCP segments)

If you tried ldp-portable in the last 3 weeks and it was broken, try
updating your CVS client and giving it another go.

Sorry for the long delay.
Jim
-- 
James R. Leu

Re: [mpls-linux-general] Re: MPLS-Linux

[Saeed A. <she...@ho...>]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for you reply, can you please clarify following as well;

1- When you say that there is some bug in mplsadm commands, does it mean all 
commands or only few ? if so, which ones?

2- Am I right in understanding LSP hierarchy as sending multiple labels in 
the same packet or is it multiple labels in the same tunnel ? please 
clarify.

Please respond.

Thanks
Saeed


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[mpls-linux-general] Re: MPLS-Linux

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

On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 04:12:33AM +0500, Saeed Akhter wrote:
> Hi Everybody,
> 
> Can anybody just verify (or correct my configuration,if I am wrong)for 
> following scenerio;(LER A and LER B are simulated Routers)
> 
> 
> LER A-----------------LSR 1-----------LSR 2---------LER B
> 192.168.100.3       eth1   eth2    eth0   eth1       192.168.200.3
> 
> 
> LSR 1 eth1...192.168.100.1
> LSR 1 eth2...192.168.101.1
> 
> LSR 2 eth0...192.168.101.2
> LSR 2 eth1...192.168.200.1
> 
> I configured LSR 1 as under;
> 
> mplsadm -v -L eth1:0
> mplsadm -v -L eth2:0
> 
> mplsadm -A -B -I gen:16:0 -O gen:26:eth2:ipv4:192.168.101.2 -f 
> 192.168.200.3/32

In this senerio you do not need the -f option.  In fact mplsadm may do the
wrong thing right now

The above command line should do the following (although as I said above,
mplsadm may have a bug which prevents all of these from happening):

-create in label gen:16:0
-create out label gen:26:eth2:ipv4:192.168.101.2
-bind the in label to the out label
-bind the fec (192.168.200.3/32 to the out label)

> (I believe above command will swap the label 16 with 26 and will send-out 
> the label 26 to 192.168.200.3 through LSR 2)
> 
> I configured LSR 2 as under;
> 
> mplsadm -v -L eth0:0
> mplsadm -v -L eth1:0
> 
> mplsadm -A -B -I gen:26:0 -O gen:27:eth1:ipv4:192.168.200.3

This command line looks right.

Couple of things to note:

-This only establishes an LSP for traffic from LER A to LER B.  Traffic
 from LER B to LER A will try to go via normal routing (unless you setup
 another LSP)
-Label spaces are only required on the incoming interfaces (not on the
 interface specified in the out label) It doesn't break anything to specify
 a label space on the outgoing interferface, it is just unnecessary.

Make sure to double check you work by looking at the files /proc/net/mpls_*
to make sure the kernel has done what you told it to.

Jim
-- 
James R. Leu

[mpls-linux-general] MPLS-Linux

[Saeed A. <she...@ho...>]

Hi Everybody,

Can anybody just verify (or correct my configuration,if I am wrong)for 
following scenerio;(LER A and LER B are simulated Routers)


LER A-----------------LSR 1-----------LSR 2---------LER B
192.168.100.3       eth1   eth2    eth0   eth1       192.168.200.3


LSR 1 eth1...192.168.100.1
LSR 1 eth2...192.168.101.1

LSR 2 eth0...192.168.101.2
LSR 2 eth1...192.168.200.1

I configured LSR 1 as under;

mplsadm -v -L eth1:0
mplsadm -v -L eth2:0

mplsadm -A -B -I gen:16:0 -O gen:26:eth2:ipv4:192.168.101.2 -f 
192.168.200.3/32

(I believe above command will swap the label 16 with 26 and will send-out 
the label 26 to 192.168.200.3 through LSR 2)

I configured LSR 2 as under;

mplsadm -v -L eth0:0
mplsadm -v -L eth1:0

mplsadm -A -B -I gen:26:0 -O gen:27:eth1:ipv4:192.168.200.3

(This command should swap label 26 with 27 and will send-out to LER B 
through LSR 2).

Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

Thanks
Saeed





















_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Re: [mpls-linux-general] MPLS-Linux

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

On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 04:59:54AM +0500, Saeed Akhter wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> I have been seeing the communication between you and Sunil,I have a small 
> doubt i.e Can we do multiple labels swapping in the same packet ? without 
> using any LDP/RSVP(I believe Yes, we can),please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> 
> Let's suppose we are sending MPLS labels 31,32 and 33 in packet 1 and want 
> to get those labels swapped with 41,42 & 43 labels to be received at the 
> destination.Then how can we configure it on MPLS-Linux ?
> 

Do you mean swapping a label stack of more then one label?
Yes this can be done, but why would you want to?  The most common
use of a label stack is for hiearchtical LSPs.  In this case only
the top label is swappedi,pushed or popped at each hop.

Take a look at:

mpls-linux/docs/README.label-intructions
mpls-linux/docs/README.hierarchy

-- 
James R. Leu

[mpls-linux-general] problem in ldp_linux

[Venisa C. <vca...@ho...>]

Hi all,

I have installed succesfully both Sourceforge's mpls and ldp-portable (CVS 
version) in my linux-based computers. I am using linux kernel 2.4.3 and 
following the basic configuration in file README.Ingress.
I am also using zebra so that I do not need to explicitly add the routes in 
my mpls configuration scripts in each mpls-enable computers. So far, if I 
use the mplsadm tool (that is, to setup LSP manually) the mpls encapsulation 
works very well, I can see the labels in every packets traversing my mpls 
network. Many thanks to James R. Leu :-))

My problem arises when I start using ldp_linux (that is, trying to setup LSP 
dynamically). I have compiled succesfully ldp_linux with the -DMPLS_LINUX 
flag. I have followed the configuration in file README.sample and I also use 
zebra for establishing the routes. I have changed the address of lo 
interfaces and I let zebra to create the routes for these interfaces and it 
works ! I can see the routes for these interfaces in the FIBs and I can ping 
these interfaces from the other computers. I can see the LDP messages 
(Hello, Initialization, KeepAlive, Address, Label Mapping, ...) when I use 
ldp_linux. I can see also that ldp_linux updates the mpls proc filesystem 
"mpls_in", but unfortunately only "mpls_in". I can see nothing in the other 
proc filesystems (mpls_out and mpls_fec) that are important for creating the 
LSPs. That is why I cannot see anymore the mpls encapsulation in my mpls 
network ... :'-(

I know that someone has experienced this kind of problem, would he please 
share his experiences with me or could someone please tell me if I might 
have misconfigured or forgotten something that is important ? James ?

Or should I use the ldp_zebra instead ? But I cannot quite understand the 
functionality of ldp_zebra because even with ldp_linux I can use zebra to 
establish the routes ...

Any help will be greatly appreciated ...


regards,
~Venisa Cabrilla
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[mpls-linux-general] MPLS-Linux

[Saeed A. <she...@ho...>]

Hi James,

I have been seeing the communication between you and Sunil,I have a small 
doubt i.e Can we do multiple labels swapping in the same packet ? without 
using any LDP/RSVP(I believe Yes, we can),please correct me if I am wrong.


Let's suppose we are sending MPLS labels 31,32 and 33 in packet 1 and want 
to get those labels swapped with 41,42 & 43 labels to be received at the 
destination.Then how can we configure it on MPLS-Linux ?

Hope you will guide me through this.

Thanks
Saeed






_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Re: [mpls-linux-general] complile error

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

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 03:53:07PM -0300, Daniel Makoto Hiramatsu wrote:
> Anyone now how to do when this error occur:
>  netlink.c:9:24: linux/mpls.h: Arquivo ou diretorio nao encontrado (it error
> is im portuguese )

My guess is the your /usr/include environment has been muched with (RedHat
and some other distro do this)

Setup your environment liek such:

cd /usr/src
tar -zxvf linux-2.4.5.tar.gz
mv linux linux-2.4.5
ln -sf linux-2.4.5 linux
cd /usr/include
mv linux linux.old
mv asm asm.old
ln -sf /usr/src/linux/include/linux
ln -sf /usr/src/linux/include/asm

This should fix things up for you (including the mplsadm errors)

Jim

-- 
James R. Leu

[mpls-linux-general] complilation mplsadm.c error

[Daniel M. H. <dan...@po...>]

Anyone know what to do when those errors occur:

mplsadm.c:353: 'RTM_DELILM'  undeclared (first use im this function)
mplsadm.c:353 (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
mplsadm.c:353: for each function it appears in.)
mplsadm.c:356: 'RTM_NEWILM'  undeclared (first use im this function)
mplsadm.c:372: 'RTM_DELNHLFE'  undeclared (first use im this function)
mplsadm.c:375: 'RTM_NEWNHLFE'  undeclared (first use im this function)
mplsadm.c:409: 'RTM_NEWFTN'  undeclared (first use im this function)
mplsadm.c:412: 'RTM_DELFTN'  undeclared (first use im this function)
mplsadm.c:426: 'RTM_SETININSTR'  undeclared (first use im this function)
mplsadm.c:441: 'RTM_SETOUTINSTR'  undeclared (first use im this function)
mplsadm.c:477: 'RTM_NEWXC'  undeclared (first use im this function)
mplsadm.c:480: 'RTM_DELXC'  undeclared (first use im this function)
MAKE: ** [MPLSADM.] Erro 1

[mpls-linux-general] complile error

[Daniel M. H. <dan...@po...>]

Anyone now how to do when this error occur:
 netlink.c:9:24: linux/mpls.h: Arquivo ou diretorio nao encontrado (it error
is im portuguese )

Re: [mpls-linux-general] mpls-linux-0.990 problems

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

On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 06:18:11PM +0530, JK Swamy wrote:
> 
> Hi James,
> I have downloaded mpls-linux-0.990 and was trying to setup a simple

You will want to move to 0.993 is you plan to send ant TCP based traffic.
There was a bug in 0.990 that resulted in TCP traffic causing a kernel
crash.

> mpls working as given in /utils/README.Example
> I runned the script as given there. Using Ethereal protocol Analyser I could
> not find any MPLS packets when I  ping/ftp.

Make sure you actualy have some 'stuff' configured by looking at
/proc/net/mpls_*

In particular you will need an entry in mpls_fec that matched the destination
you are trying to ping.

You could also turn on MPLS kernel debugging by doing 'mplsadm -d'
then look at your console or your /var/log/messages file OR do a 'dmesg'
and you will see what the MPLS stack is doing.  You might want to turn on this
debugging even before configuring the LSPs.  This way you can make sure
they were created correctly.

Jim

> Also what ever may be the Labeling between the two nodes I was able to ping.
> 
> If anybody tried this example and can respond I would appreciate ...
> 
> Bye
> --jkswamy
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Velankani Information Systems Ltd, Bangalore, India
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-linux-general mailing list
> mpl...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general

-- 
James R. Leu

Re: [mpls-linux-general] setup problem in linux-mpls-ldp-0.011

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

Dude,

You have got to be kidding me .... linux-mpls-ldp-0.011 is from September
of 99!  That code is not even from this millennium!

Get the following files and follow the directions in them:

ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.5.tar.gz
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/mpls-linux/mpls-linux-0.993.tar.gz

If you still have difficulty let me know.

Jim

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:06:54PM +0530, AK Rasanth wrote:
> hi,
> I have installed linux-mpls-ldp-0.011 package on redhat linux 6.2  with
> kernel 2.3.3  . it was installed properly except that , even after
> giving the option for /proc file system while configuring the kernel ,
> the files
> mpls_in, mpls_lib, mpls_out  were not formed in /proc/net directory.
> 
> 
> the setup that i used is given below.
> 
> ******************************************
> NOTE: mplsadm is located in the util directory.
> 
>                           Manual LSP beteen 2 hosts
>                          ---------------------------
> 
> Setup
> -----
>  ---------             ---------
>  |   A   |                              |   B   |
>  ---------             ---------
>      | eth0                            | eth0
>      |10.1.6.18                     | 10.1.3.17
> -----------------------------------
> 
> 
> Config
> ------
> On A:
>   ping B
>   arp B
>   route add -host B gw B
>   mplsadm -L gen:0:0:ipv4:localhost:B/32:eth0:MAC-of-B
> 
> On B:
>   ping A
>   arp A
>   route add -host A gw A
>   mplsadm -L gen:0:0:ipv4:localhost:A/32:eth0:MAC-of-A
> 
> Now you need to set a label space on eth0 on both A and B.  Watch out!
> if you do this remotely you could saw your leg off!
> 
> On both:
>   mplsadm -I eth0:0
> 
> Now all traffic between and and B is using the LSP.
> ********************************************
> when i executed ldpd on both the machines , the protocol analyser
> ethereal is recognising the LDP protocol.  but when i run the above
> metioned script I am geting the following error messages.
> against : mplsadm -I eth0:0     , I got : Label Space Result -1
> against :mplsadm -L gen:0:0:ipv4:localhost:A/32:eth0:MAC-of-A     , I
> got : LIB Result -1  .
> can u please guide me through this problem .
> Thanks &Regards,
> Rasanth
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Velankani Information Systems Ltd, Bangalore, India
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-linux-general mailing list
> mpl...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general

-- 
James R. Leu

[mpls-linux-general] Re: ldp_zebra

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

Sorry about that.  Unfortunatly I submitted some code to the CVS tree
that probably should have been tested more.  I did some more work on it
last night.  I'll try and test my changes and then submit them sometime
tonight.

Jim

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 06:32:53PM +0200, Giovanna Piantanida (ERI) wrote:
> hi Jim,
> 
> I am now testing ldp_zebra with the new files you left in CVS repository.
> Zebra version installed is 0.91a.
> 
> When receiving hello packages,the system print out the following
> error message
> 
> OUT: Failed while decoding HEADER:-2
> 
> and the hello packet is never read.
> 
> I looked through the code and I got under the impression 
> that, in version 1.8 of ldp_state_machine.c,the state machine functions are
> actually never called after an event.
> is it that possible or am i missing something in the new code that substitutes that?
> thanks
> Best Regards
> Giovanna
> 
> 

-- 
James R. Leu

[mpls-linux-general] mpls_in , mpls_out and other file in /proc/net not formed

[Sujeet <aar...@ya...>]

hi james ,
v are working on mpls for linux using the package
linux-mpls-ldp-0.011
for this v got linux kernel 2.3.3 and the installation was perfect v =
didnt get any errors while compling and patching
ldp deamon was also compiled properly and it was able to recognise the =
other node which was also running ldp
but the problem is that the file in the directory /proc/net are not =
being formed=20
if u cud help me in this=20
or tellme i shud use the other mplsadm version
please help me how get these files mpls_in,mpls_out

thanx /regards,
Sujeet

[mpls-linux-general] setup problem in linux-mpls-ldp-0.011

[AK R. <akr...@ve...>]

hi,
I have installed linux-mpls-ldp-0.011 package on redhat linux 6.2  with
kernel 2.3.3  . it was installed properly except that , even after
giving the option for /proc file system while configuring the kernel ,
the files
mpls_in, mpls_lib, mpls_out  were not formed in /proc/net directory.


the setup that i used is given below.

******************************************
NOTE: mplsadm is located in the util directory.

                          Manual LSP beteen 2 hosts
                         ---------------------------

Setup
-----
 ---------             ---------
 |   A   |                              |   B   |
 ---------             ---------
     | eth0                            | eth0
     |10.1.6.18                     | 10.1.3.17
-----------------------------------


Config
------
On A:
  ping B
  arp B
  route add -host B gw B
  mplsadm -L gen:0:0:ipv4:localhost:B/32:eth0:MAC-of-B

On B:
  ping A
  arp A
  route add -host A gw A
  mplsadm -L gen:0:0:ipv4:localhost:A/32:eth0:MAC-of-A

Now you need to set a label space on eth0 on both A and B.  Watch out!
if you do this remotely you could saw your leg off!

On both:
  mplsadm -I eth0:0

Now all traffic between and and B is using the LSP.
********************************************
when i executed ldpd on both the machines , the protocol analyser
ethereal is recognising the LDP protocol.  but when i run the above
metioned script I am geting the following error messages.
against : mplsadm -I eth0:0     , I got : Label Space Result -1
against :mplsadm -L gen:0:0:ipv4:localhost:A/32:eth0:MAC-of-A     , I
got : LIB Result -1  .
can u please guide me through this problem .
Thanks &Regards,
Rasanth


--------------------------------------------------------------
Velankani Information Systems Ltd, Bangalore, India

Re: [mpls-linux-general] Re: MPLS-Linux

[Sunil K. <sun...@ho...>]

Jim,

Thanks once again,I got the labels swapped for only two packets i.e 16 to 26 
and 17 to 27 but after that I am not able to receive any 3rd packet.

I configured as under;

mplsadm -v -L eth1:0
mplsadm -v -L eth2:0

mplsadm -A -B -I gen:16:0 -O gen:26:eth2:ipv4:10.0.2.3
mplsadm -A -B -I gen:17:0 -O gen:26:eth2:ipv4:10.0.2.3

I am capturing the packets at LER B(Simulated Router) as 26 and 27 and when 
I try to insert the third label entry in the same manner for 18 to 28 
swapping, I don't receive it the way it happened in the case of 16 and 17 
labels.

Moreover, upon typing more /proc/net/mpls_* it shows following;

/proc/net/mpls_in


gen 16 0 POP FWD
gen 17 0 POP FWD
gen 18 0 POP FWD

in /proc/net/mpls_labelspace it shows;

tunl0   0
gre0    0
eth1    0
eth2    0

in /proc/net/mpls_out, it shows;

PUSH(gen 26) SET(eth2)
PUSH(gen 27) SET(eth2)
PUSH(gen 28) SET(eth2)

Can you please guide me what's wrong and why I am not able to receive the 
third label at my LER B(I am not forwarding back anything towards LER A) as 
I the packet flow is from LER A to LER B only.Please not that everything is 
same as first and second label.

Please guide,

Thanks
Sunil






>From: "James R. Leu" <jl...@mi...>
>Reply-To: jl...@mi...
>To: Sunil Kumar <sun...@ho...>
>CC: jl...@mi...
>Subject: Re: [mpls-linux-general] Re: MPLS-Linux
>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:01:41 -0500
>
>On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:46:06PM -0000, Sunil Kumar wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > Thanks,but in case if I want to swap the label 16 with 17 and 18 with 19
> > within that tunnel,then would it be O.K, if I do as under ?
> >
> > mplsadm -v -L eth1:0
> > mplsadm -v -L eth2:0
> >
> > mplsadm -A -B -I gen:16:0 -O gen:17:eth2:ipv4:10.0.2.3
> > mplsadm -A -B -I gen:18:0 -O gen:19:eth2:ipv4:10.0.2.3
>
>Yes these are the correct commands to swap labels. going from LER A to LER 
>B.
>
> > Moreover, what if I don't want to send any packet back to LER A(its only
> > uni-directional Tunnel from LER A to LER B), do I still need to
> > configure following;
> >
> > mplsadm -A -B -I gen:17:0 -O gen:17:eth1:10.0.1.1
>
>You do not need to configure the LSP in both direction.
>The LSP in one direction is independent of the other.
>
>Jim
>
> > >From: "James R. Leu" <jl...@mi...>
> > >Reply-To: jl...@mi...
> > >To: Sunil Kumar <sun...@ho...>
> > >Subject: Re: [mpls-linux-general] Re: MPLS-Linux
> > >Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:58:56 -0500
> > >
> > >On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 07:45:01PM -0000, Sunil Kumar wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > How can we create an Static LSP Tunnel on LSR connecetd with a 
>simualted
> > >LER
> > > > A through its port eth1 and with simulated LER B through its port 
>eth2?
> > > >
> > > > Let's take the same scenerio while considering LER A and B as 
>simulated
> > > > Routers(we can't apply any mplsadm commands on that):
> > > >
> > > > Example:
> > > > >              10.0.1.0/24           10.0.2.0/24
> > > > >     ------- .1         .2 ----- .2            .3 -------
> > > > >    | LER A |-------------| LSR |----------------| LER B |
> > > > >     ------- eth1     eth1 ----- eth2        eth1 -------
> > > > >       lo0                  lo0                    lo0
> > > > >    1.1.1.1/32           2.2.2.2/32             3.3.3.3/32
> > > > >
> > > > Please advise.
> > >
> > >On LSR
> > >------
> > >
> > >From A -> B with label 16
> > >
> > >mplsadm -L eth1:1
> > >mplsadm -A -B -I gen:16:1 -O gen:16:eth2:ipv4:10.0.2.3
> > >
> > >From B -> A with label 17
> > >
> > >mplsadm -L eth2:2
> > >mplsadm -A -B -I gen:17:2 -O gen:17:eth1:ipv4:10.0.1.1
> > >
> > >NOTE: the labelspaces (specified with -L command) are arbitrary and 
>could
> > >both be set to 0 in this example
> > >
> > >Look at /proc/net/mpls_* to verify the config.
> > >
> > >Jim
> > >--
> > >James R. Leu
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>--
>James R. Leu

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: [mpls-linux-general] Re: MPLS-Linux

[Sunil K. <sun...@ho...>]

Hi,

How can we create an Static LSP Tunnel on LSR connecetd with a simualted LER 
A through its port eth1 and with simulated LER B through its port eth2?

Let's take the same scenerio while considering LER A and B as simulated 
Routers(we can't apply any mplsadm commands on that):

Example:
>              10.0.1.0/24           10.0.2.0/24
>     ------- .1         .2 ----- .2            .3 -------
>    | LER A |-------------| LSR |----------------| LER B |
>     ------- eth1     eth1 ----- eth2        eth1 -------
>       lo0                  lo0                    lo0
>    1.1.1.1/32           2.2.2.2/32             3.3.3.3/32
>
>
>      -------------- flow of packets ------------->
>
Please advise.


Thanks
Sunil
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: [mpls-linux-general] unknown protocol

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

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:49:08AM +0530, nomit kalidhar wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I had set up a LSP between two nodes as given in the example. The were
> corresponding entries in corresponding mpls_in etc .. files also. When i
> telnet from one of these terminals to another i get a message saying:
> mpls_output unknown protocol.
> Is this consistent with the LSP that was setup. Why is this happening ?

It is more of a warning then anything else.  Is it only happening when you send
TCP packets (telnet or FTP) and not ICMP (ping) packets?  The Linux
IP stack is an odd beast, it is a little over optimised in someplace
to the point that it isn't always consitent in setting the state of a packet
when it is sent to the 'output' funtions.  This message is indicating that
the IP stack didn't mark it's packet as being an IP packet, so when the MPLS
stack gets it it cannot copy the TTL from the IP header into the shim.
A default TTL is used instead.  I need to dig through the IP code to figure
out which senerios lead to this condition.

Jim

> 
> With regards
> 
> Nomit
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-linux-general mailing list
> mpl...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mpls-linux-general

-- 
James R. Leu

[mpls-linux-general] unknown protocol

[nomit k. <nom...@in...>]

Hello

I had set up a LSP between two nodes as given in the example. The were
corresponding entries in corresponding mpls_in etc .. files also. When i
telnet from one of these terminals to another i get a message saying:
mpls_output unknown protocol.
Is this consistent with the LSP that was setup. Why is this happening ?

With regards

Nomit