[c-nsp] 802.1w vs EoMPLS failover time

[Phil Bedard]

Is there a jitter buffer on the RAD boxes you can adjust?  Generally  
plain voice can deal with a decent amount of latency. If you can do a  
50ms or higher jitter buffer, FRR may allow you to not underrun.

Phil


On Oct 30, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Walter Keen wrote:

> Sorry, our current situation is that during a spanning tree  
> switchover, it encounters a buffer underrun error on the RAD box,  
> and we are looking to see if perhaps a mpls TE tunnel with explicit  
> paths (2 explicit paths plus a dynamic path) would help matters any  
> as opposed to just layer 2 vlans.  I'll look into FRR.
>
> Phil Bedard wrote:
>> 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/
>>
>
> -- 
>
>
> Walter Keen
> Network Technician
> Rainier Connect
> (o) 360-832-4024
> (c) 253-302-0194
>