[c-nsp] Class-based Tunnel Selection questions

[Pete Templin]

Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:

>>As far as incoming traffic supported, the doc says it supports:
>>
>>1: Unlabeled or MPLS (CsC) VRF traffic into a PE router.
>>2: Unlabeled or MPLS traffic into a P router.
>>
>>Does it not support unlabeled traffic coming into a P router?
> 
> It does, you mentioned it, didn't you? "2: Unlabeled or MPLS traffic
> into a P router."

Sorry, the sinus medication still isn't working its magic.  I meant to 
ask about unlabeled traffic into a PE router, i.e. ipv4 customer traffic 
wanting to make its way to the Internet and vice versa.

>>As far as the restrictions, "The operation of CBTS is not supported
>>  with AToM..."; does that mean AToM packets won't travel on any
>>tunnels, or simply that AToM is not CoS-aware and therefore not able
>>to be deposited into the "correct" class-based tunnel?
> 
> As far as I know, this restriction only applies if L2VPN-PE and TE
> head-end are on the same box.  So if you have
> 
> PE -- P === P -- PE 
> 
> and you have parallel, CBTS-enabled TE tunnels between the two P

What happens if the L2VPN-PE is the TE head-end?  In this situation, I 
don't care if the PE can't select the "right" (i.e. selected by CoS) 
tunnel, just whether enabling CBTS will prevent AToM traffic from being 
traffic-engineered.  Shifting my TE tunnels to the next node results in 
a massive loss of granularity, which I'd like to avoid.

Thanks,

pt