[c-nsp] 802.1w vs EoMPLS failover time

[Phil Bedard]

The part where you said what the RSTP convergence time was got lost  
somewhere.  Just using a tunnel primary/secondary paths may not be  
quicker than RSTP.  If you use FRR protection as well it may result in  
less traffic loss than RSTP.   Some vendors have different behavior  
when the failure is on the actual ingress node than a transit node, so  
you may want to investigate that if you are using FRR.

Phil


On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Walter Keen wrote:

>
> I've got a jitter-sensitive application (voice DS3 over some RAD  
> equipment) that we are testing, and I've got a rapid spanning tree  
> ring through the below network.  We have it down to during a  
> spanning tree switchover (tested by adjusting the rapid-pvst cost on  
> the trunk interface), and curious if people feel if EoMPLS with a  
> mpls-TE tunnel would provide faster convergence in case of a  
> failure, given a fairly vanilla OSPF as the IGP, and 2 explicit  
> paths defined (A-D, then A-B-D), as the endpoints of this  
> application are at A and D.
>
> I think I'm going to start testing this tomorrow or next week, but  
> curious if anyone had any thoughts or suggestions.  HW is 7600/ 
> RSP720 at A and B, 7600/SUP720 at D and C, all with 6724sfp cards  
> for core-facing interfaces, and 6148 card (10/100) for RAD-facing  
> interfaces.
>
> Network looks like
>
> A-------------------D
> \------B-----------/
> \----------C-----/
>
> Or, A has a connection to D, A has a connection to B and C, B has a  
> connection to D, C has a connection to D.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/