[c-nsp] MPLS TE Autoroute with OSPF and IS-IS?

[Pete Templin]

Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:
> Pete Templin <> wrote on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:21 PM:
> 
>> Anyone ever switch from OSPF to IS-IS with MPLS TE and autoroute in
>> place?  We're working through a "ships in the night" rollout of IS-IS,
>> and have now noticed that our tunnels aren't being substituted for the
>> physical links in our RIB and FIB.  Any guidance on this topic?
> 
> hmm, not sure I understand. You're running OSPF in your network, and now
> deployed ISIS and enabled TE with ISIS? And you don't see any ISIS paths
> via the tunnel? Please clarify..

We've been running OSPF, and have been running MPLS TE with autoroute 
enabled.

We've rolled out ISIS, with TE enabled under "router isis".  We have not 
yet changed administrative distances to make ISIS the preferred IGP.

Tunnel autoroute appears to have stopped functioning: all tunnels have 0 
bps traffic, and "sh ip ro x.x.x.x" shows a true next-hop learned via 
OSPF, rather than a set of tunnels.

It somewhat appears that ISIS is the preferred IGP for autoroute, even 
though it's got a higher AD:

core1-dlls#sh mpls traff autoroute
MPLS TE autorouting enabled
   destination 0661.1800.4033.00, area isis  level-2, has 4 tunnels
     Tunnel411   (load balancing metric 2000000, nexthop 66.118.4.33)
                 (flags: Announce)
(blah blah blah)

Perhaps since none of my next hop reachability information is coming 
from ISIS, this internal preference is causing autoroute to not insert 
reachability into the FIB?

pt