[c-nsp] MPLS L3 VPN over TE - Load Balancing per Customer

[Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)]

Agreed, but I was rather asking why people start selectively route vrfs
over specific tunnels? 
If you deploy a FRR solution, you might as well send all traffic over it
(some caveats might apply, for example a possible loss of load-sharing)
by enabling autoroute-announce..

Another thought on this: core link failures are usually your least
concern when it comes to L3VPN convergence, you can generally achieve
sub-second tuning your IGP (some caveats might apply, depending on
platform and environment). PE node or PE-CE link failures are much more
"critical", and TE-FRR will not help you address either of these
failures.

	oli

alaerte.vidali at nsn.com <mailto:alaerte.vidali at nsn.com> wrote on
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 4:09 PM:

> Tks Oli,
> 
> I believe it is a trend due to FastReroute recovery for VPN customers.
> Maybe it change soon with IP FastReroute. Maybe not :)
> 
> I will test it again with your suggestion.
> 
> Tks again,
> Alaerte
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:oboehmer at cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 5:43 AM
> To: Vidali Alaerte (NSN - BR/Rio de Janeiro);
> cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] MPLS L3 VPN over TE - Load Balancing per Customer
> 
> alaerte.vidali at nsn.com <> wrote on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:18 PM:
> 
>>  Hi,
>> 
>> Considering the topology where MPLS VPN over TE is used: (2 links
>> between PE1--PE2) 
>> 
>> CustA------PE1========PE2----CustA
>>             |          |
>> CustB_______|          |_____CustB
>> 
>> 
>> What are the possibilities of loading balance traffic in the way
>> CustA 
> 
>> traffic goes through link 1 and CustB traffic goes through link 2?
>> (considering BGP next hop is the same for CustA and CustB)
> 
> Why are you using TE in this setup?
> 
> The TE tunnel will only use one of the two links. If you really want
> to 
> achieve what you describe, you need two tunnels and use bgp next-hop
> manipulation to steer the traffic over the respective tunnel. But you
> could also use two tunnels and use CEF load-sharing for a single bgp
> next-hop. TE also allows to do unequal-cost loadsharing, but you are
> probably aware of this already.
> 
> 	oli
> 
> P.S: This is the third time L3VPN over TE has come up in the past few
> weeks. Is this a trend? ;-)