Re: LDP rid

The router ID must be routeable with LDP.

Labels are not exchanged multicast.

You should read the RFC for LDP [1] and understand this thoroughly,
but basically, the hellos in LDP are just used for session parameter
exchange and for providing keepalive for LDP. Everything else occurs
in a TCP session between the two LSRs. The router ID is the IP address
used (by default exceptions apply) to setup the session. If LSR A and
B have router-IDs of a.a.a.a and b.b.b.b, a.a.a.a connects to b.b.b.b
on port 646 and uses TCP as the transport. It then exchanges labels.
Also, a loopback should generally be used for transport (in
production).

So basically, things are not working fine if you are expecting label
switched traffic.

HTH

--
William McCall, CCIE #25044
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5036
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Bernard Steven <buny.steven_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some of the documents that i read stated that the exact route should be in
> place. But as i said it did not break any thing so far except for sham
> links.
>
> Just curious , if i encountered this in the lab , what to do. "no host route
> to transport addr"  whether to leave it as long as it works fine.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:10 PM, garry baker <baker.garry_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > WARNING: more my rambles than an actually answer...
> >
> > i would say it doesnt matter in a link local (multicast hello)
> > configuration the neighbors will come up and peer and pass label information
> > which is the whole point...
> >
> > in a targeted session neighbor configuration (unicast hello) i guess this
> > would not be the case as you would have to route to the LDP Id, but then
> > again that doesnt mean you have to have an exact /32 host route to get there
> > either
> >
> > the usual way i set this up is with a routing protocol running advertising
> > a loopback interface which is usually a /32 also used for the BGP sessions
> > so it just sort of falls into place...
> >
> > probably something i am missing and it is probably letting you know that
> > information for some reason, but i cannot think of anything that is breaking
> > the LDP neighbor-ship and passing of labels...
> >
> > i would love to hear more from more knowledgeable experts thought...
> >
> > and if you dont have any problems and your setup is "working" then not sure
> > how you would even know until the problem did arise...
> >
> >
> > --
> > Garry L. Baker
> >
> > "There is no 'patch' for stupidity." - www.sqlsecurity.com
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Bernard Steven <buny.steven_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Is it a must that peer  LDP router IDs have an exact route in the local
> >> routing table ?
> >> Even without an exact match , things work fine.
> >>
> >> LDP Id: 6.6.6.6:0; no host route to transport addr
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >>
> >> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> Subscription information may be found at:
> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net