From: Arun Kumar Arumuganainar (aarumuga@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 20 2007 - 11:50:26 ART
I could not belive this ... Such a long mail thread ....
Ok I think the answer to is question Pretty straight forward. Turn on the
command on the global configuration mode
mpls ldp password requiredFor more details on this command pls refer to the
following
link.http://cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6566/products_feature_guide09186a00805
f24da.htmlThanks and RegardsArun
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:34:24 -0700> From: hoonlee_73@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: mpls ldp authentication question !!> To: guxiaojian@gmail.com;
RMcCallum@thrupoint.net> CC: dishanlg@gmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
comserv@groupstudy.com> > Hi Dishan,> > Just to clarify, your original
question was to block other PEs from building LDP neighbor relationship
'without' having ACL setup even you have full IGP connectivities between all
PEs.> Is that right?> > With that regard, I don't believe massing with IGP to
prevent PEs from building LDP neighbors is not very valid solution.> > Hoon>
CCIE#10648 (R&S)> > ----- Original Message ----> From: Jian Gu
<guxiaojian@gmail.com>> To: Robert McCallum <RMcCallum@thrupoint.net>> Cc:
Dishan Gamage <dishanlg@gmail.com>; Cisco certification
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>; Cisco certification <comserv@groupstudy.com>> Sent:
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:29:17 AM> Subject: Re: mpls ldp authentication
question !!> > > Dear senior consultatant,> > You are blocking (IGP) adjacency
with other one to prevent LDP session from> forming? nice solution.> > So is
LDP authentication a valid solution or not?> > On 3/19/07, Robert McCallum
<RMcCallum@thrupoint.net> wrote:> >> > Really? Are you sure? Think about it!!
Come on think about this how can> > you stop a router forming an ADJACENCY
with the other one? Who cares> > about> > LDP - stop it before ldp even has a
chance to get in there.> >> > OR use the new command - bearing in mind I sat
my lab over a year ago ;-)> > Robert McCallum> > Senior Consultant> > Mobile :
+44(0)7818002241> >> > > -----Original Message-----> > > From:
nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of> > > Jian
Gu> > > Sent: 19 March 2007 19:47> > > To: Robert McCallum> > > Cc: Dishan
Gamage; Cisco certification; Cisco certification> > > Subject: Re: mpls ldp
authentication question !!> > >> > > How does IGP global command have anything
to do with LDP authentication?> > > you> > > must be mistaken.> > >> > > On
3/19/07, Robert McCallum <RMcCallum@thrupoint.net> wrote:> > > >> > > > Hmm I
thought I had replied to this. Oh well - Clue : Check your IGP> > > > Global>
> > > commands.> > > >> > > > Robert McCallum> > > > Senior Consultant> > > >>
> > > > -----Original Message-----> > > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
[mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf> > > Of> > > > > Dishan Gamage> > > >
> Sent: 19 March 2007 11:44> > > > > To: Cisco certification; Cisco
certification> > > > > Subject: mpls ldp authentication question !!> > > > >>
> > > > Hi Group> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > I have PE1 & PE2
configured to use md5 for LDP, working fine...> > > > >> > > > > PE1> > > > >>
> > > > mpls ldp neighbor 172.16.12.2 password abcdef> > > > >> > > > >> > > >
> PE2> > > > >> > > > > mpls ldp neighbor 172.16.12.1 password abcdef> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > the question says to block a new PE (eg PE3), from joining
into the> > > mpls> > > > > domain without using an ACL> > > > >> > > > > I
see that when PE3 boots up it also establish ldp neighbor> > > > >
relationships..................> > > > >> > > > > can someone explain how this
can be done ??> > > > >> > > > > tks in advance> > > > > dishan> > > > >> > >
> >> > _____________________________________________________________________>
> > > > Subscription information:> >
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/comserv.html> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
Note:The information contained in this message may be privileged and> > > >
confidential and protected from disclosure . If the reader of this> > >
message> > > > is not the> > > > intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering> > > > this message to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that> > any> > > > dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is> > strictly> > > > prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please> > > notify> > > > us> > > > immediately
by replying to the message and deleting it from your> > > computer.> > > >
Thankyou. ThruPoint Ltd.> > > >> > > >> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 06:35:52 ART