ldp-tunneling with hidden route in table inet.3

koala0808

Hi mates,

im experiencing an issue regarding ldp-tunneling.

The question is why some hidden routes will be generated within inet.3 routing table when ldp-tunneling is cofigurated within the LSP.

When I deactive the ldp-tunneling, the hidden routes within inet.3 are gone.

could any experts bring me some light on this?


Thanks in advance.



Kind regards
Leo Gu

Ryan82

I'm not an expert by any means but I will try to help

Might be easier to deduce if you provided a diagram and relevent configurations. Are the hidden routes from the ldp portion of your network on the other end of your RSVP network?

What routes does this reveal: sh route table inet.3 hidden

koala0808

Many thanks for your kind reply, Ryan82.
Here is the Topo(P518/868_Using LDP through an RSVP Network in JNCIS_studyguide):

And below is the output of "show":
================
[edit]
root@test# run show route hidden logical-router r3


inet.0: 21 destinations, 21 routes (21 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)


inet.3: 8 destinations, 12 routes (5 active, 0 holddown, 6 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both


4.4.4.4/32 [OSPF] 00:03:44, metric 3
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
5.5.47.0/24 [OSPF] 00:03:44, metric 4
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
5.5.48.0/24 [OSPF] 00:03:39, metric 4
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
5.5.78.0/24 [OSPF] 00:03:44, metric 5
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
7.7.7.7/32 [OSPF] 00:03:44, metric 4
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
8.8.8.8/32 [OSPF] 00:03:39, metric 4
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4


mpls.0: 10 destinations, 10 routes (10 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
================

================
[edit]
root@test# run show route hidden logical-router r3 detail 4.4.4.4


inet.3: 8 destinations, 12 routes (5 active, 0 holddown, 6 hidden)
4.4.4.4/32 (3 entries, 2 announced)
State: <FlashAll>
OSPF
Next hop type: Router
Next-hop reference count: 10
Next hop: 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13 weight 0x1, selected
Label-switched-path r3->r4
Label operation: Push 100016
State: <Hidden Int>
Inactive reason: Unusable path
Local AS: 65412
Age: 4:26 Metric: 3
Area: 0.0.0.0
Task: OSPFv2
Announcement bits (1): 1-LDP
AS path: I
================

Above test has been done on my simulator and M5, whereas I encountered the same issue.


Thanks.

koala0808

Hi Ryan82,

Here you go the whole config which provides you with the interface and protocols configured:
=======================
root@test# show | no-more
## Last changed: 2011-12-11 19:11:28 UTC
version 8.5R1.14;
system {
host-name test;
domain-name MNCIF.net;
root-authentication {
encrypted-password "$1$o455j.US$XoiGr8tFjIBGwU4dRT7KT1"; ## SECRET-DATA
}
syslog {
user * {
any emergency;
}
file messages {
any notice;
authorization info;
}
file interactive-commands {
interactive-commands any;
}
}
}
logical-routers {
r1 {
interfaces {
fxp1 {
unit 12 {
vlan-id 12;
family inet {
address 5.5.12.1/24;
}
family mpls;
}
unit 13 {
vlan-id 13;
family inet {
address 5.5.13.1/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 1 {
family inet {
address 1.1.1.1/32;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
rsvp {
interface all;
}
mpls {
inactive: no-propagate-ttl;
interface all;
}
ospf {
traffic-engineering;
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface fxp1.12;
interface fxp1.13;
interface lo0.1;
}
}
}
routing-options {
router-id 1.1.1.1;
autonomous-system 65412;
}
}
r2 {
interfaces {
fxp1 {
unit 24 {
vlan-id 24;
family inet {
address 5.5.24.2/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
fxp2 {
unit 12 {
vlan-id 12;
family inet {
address 5.5.12.2/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 2 {
family inet {
address 2.2.2.2/32;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
rsvp {
interface all;
}
mpls {
inactive: no-propagate-ttl;
interface all;
}
ospf {
traffic-engineering;
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface fxp1.24;
interface fxp2.12;
interface lo0.2;
}
}
}
routing-options {
router-id 2.2.2.2;
autonomous-system 65412;
}
}
r3 {
interfaces {
fxp1 {
inactive: unit 34 {
vlan-id 34;
family inet {
address 5.5.34.3/24;
}
family mpls;
}
unit 35 {
vlan-id 35;
family inet {
address 5.5.35.3/24;
}
family mpls;
}
unit 36 {
vlan-id 36;
family inet {
address 5.5.36.3/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
fxp2 {
unit 13 {
vlan-id 13;
family inet {
address 5.5.13.3/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 3 {
family inet {
address 3.3.3.3/32;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
rsvp {
interface fxp2.13;
}
mpls {
inactive: no-propagate-ttl;
label-switched-path r3->r4 {
from 3.3.3.3;
to 4.4.4.4;
ldp-tunneling;
adaptive;
primary r3r4;
}
path r3r4 {
5.5.13.1 strict;
5.5.12.2 strict;
}
interface fxp2.13;
interface fxp1.35;
interface fxp1.36;
}
ospf {
traffic-engineering;
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface fxp1.35;
interface fxp1.36;
interface lo0.3;
interface fxp2.13;
}
}
ldp {
interface fxp1.35;
interface fxp1.36;
interface lo0.3;
}
}
routing-options {
router-id 3.3.3.3;
autonomous-system 65412;
}
}
r4 {
interfaces {
fxp1 {
unit 47 {
vlan-id 47;
family inet {
address 5.5.47.4/24;
}
family mpls;
}
unit 48 {
vlan-id 48;
family inet {
address 5.5.48.4/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
fxp2 {
unit 24 {
vlan-id 24;
family inet {
address 5.5.24.4/24;
}
family mpls;
}
inactive: unit 34 {
vlan-id 34;
family inet {
address 5.5.34.4/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 4 {
family inet {
address 4.4.4.4/32;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
rsvp {
interface fxp2.24;
}
mpls {
inactive: no-propagate-ttl;
inactive: explicit-null;
label-switched-path r4->r3 {
from 4.4.4.4;
to 3.3.3.3;
ldp-tunneling;
primary r4r3;
}
path r4r3 {
5.5.24.2 strict;
5.5.12.1 strict;
}
interface fxp2.24;
interface fxp1.47;
interface fxp1.48;
}
ospf {
traffic-engineering;
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface lo0.4;
interface fxp2.24;
}
area 0.0.1.222 {
interface fxp1.47;
interface fxp1.48;
}
}
ldp {
interface fxp1.47;
interface fxp1.48;
interface lo0.4;
}
}
routing-options {
router-id 4.4.4.4;
autonomous-system 65412;
}
}
r5 {
interfaces {
fxp1 {
unit 56 {
vlan-id 56;
family inet {
address 5.5.56.5/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
fxp2 {
unit 35 {
vlan-id 35;
family inet {
address 5.5.35.5/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 5 {
family inet {
address 5.5.5.5/32;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
mpls {
interface all;
}
ospf {
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface all;
}
}
ldp {
interface all;
}
}
routing-options {
router-id 5.5.5.5;
autonomous-system 65412;
}
}
r6 {
interfaces {
fxp2 {
unit 36 {
vlan-id 36;
family inet {
address 5.5.36.6/24;
}
family mpls;
}
unit 56 {
vlan-id 56;
family inet {
address 5.5.56.6/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 6 {
family inet {
address 6.6.6.6/32;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
mpls {
interface all;
}
ospf {
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface all;
}
}
ldp {
interface all;
}
}
routing-options {
router-id 6.6.6.6;
autonomous-system 65412;
}
}
r7 {
interfaces {
fxp1 {
unit 78 {
vlan-id 78;
family inet {
address 5.5.78.7/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
fxp2 {
unit 47 {
vlan-id 47;
family inet {
address 5.5.47.7/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 7 {
family inet {
address 7.7.7.7/32;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
mpls {
interface all;
}
ospf {
area 0.0.1.222 {
interface all;
}
}
ldp {
interface all;
}
}
routing-options {
router-id 7.7.7.7;
autonomous-system 65412;
}
}
r8 {
interfaces {
fxp2 {
unit 48 {
vlan-id 48;
family inet {
address 5.5.48.8/24;
}
family mpls;
}
unit 78 {
vlan-id 78;
family inet {
address 5.5.78.8/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 8 {
family inet {
address 8.8.8.8/32;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
mpls {
interface all;
}
ospf {
area 0.0.1.222 {
interface all;
}
}
ldp {
interface all;
}
}
policy-options {
policy-statement static {
term 1 {
from {
protocol static;
route-filter 192.168.0.0/16 orlonger;
}
then accept;
}
}
}
routing-options {
static {
route 192.168.1.0/24 reject;
}
router-id 8.8.8.8;
autonomous-system 65412;
}
}
}
interfaces {
fxp0 {
vlan-tagging;
}
fxp1 {
vlan-tagging;
}
fxp2 {
vlan-tagging;
}
fxp3 {
vlan-tagging;
}
lo0 {
unit 0;
}
}


[edit]


=======================


Thanks.


Kind regards
Leo Gu

koala0808

I think this issue is due to the command "ldp-tunneling".
When I delete/deactive "ldp-tunneling" on r3, the hidden routes within inet.3 routing table of r3 are gone.


PS: the same situation are the same on r4.




========================
[edit]
root@test# show logical-routers r3 protocols mpls
inactive: no-propagate-ttl;
label-switched-path r3->r4 {
from 3.3.3.3;
to 4.4.4.4;
ldp-tunneling;
adaptive;
primary r3r4;
}
path r3r4 {
5.5.13.1 strict;
5.5.12.2 strict;
}
interface fxp2.13;
interface fxp1.35;
interface fxp1.36;
========================


========================
root@test# run show route hidden logical-router r3


inet.0: 21 destinations, 21 routes (21 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)


inet.3: 8 destinations, 12 routes (5 active, 0 holddown, 6 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both


4.4.4.4/32 [OSPF] 00:00:13, metric 3
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
5.5.47.0/24 [OSPF] 00:00:13, metric 4
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
5.5.48.0/24 [OSPF] 00:00:13, metric 4
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
5.5.78.0/24 [OSPF] 00:00:13, metric 5
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
7.7.7.7/32 [OSPF] 00:00:13, metric 4
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4
8.8.8.8/32 [OSPF] 00:00:13, metric 4
> to 5.5.13.1 via fxp2.13, label-switched-path r3->r4


mpls.0: 10 destinations, 10 routes (10 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
========================


========================
[edit]
root@test# show logical-routers r3 protocols mpls
inactive: no-propagate-ttl;
label-switched-path r3->r4 {
from 3.3.3.3;
to 4.4.4.4;
inactive: ldp-tunneling;
adaptive;
primary r3r4;
}
path r3r4 {
5.5.13.1 strict;
5.5.12.2 strict;
}
interface fxp2.13;
interface fxp1.35;
interface fxp1.36;
========================


========================
[edit]
root@test# run show route hidden logical-router r3


inet.0: 21 destinations, 21 routes (21 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)


inet.3: 3 destinations, 3 routes (3 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)


mpls.0: 7 destinations, 7 routes (7 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
========================




Thanks.




Kind regards
Leo Gu

Aldur

It's been a while since I've done LDP tunneling but I think I ran into a similar issue a while back. If I recall correctly the routes were being hidden that I wanted to use for LDP tunneling because LDP didn't see it as the shortest path, as the IGP was reporting to it.

I don't know if this is the same situation as yours, but just might be