[c-nsp] cisco MPLS AutoBandwidth Allocator

[jack daniels]

why would we have overlapping TE tunnels ?

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Peter Rathlev <peter at rathlev.dk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 09:30 +0530, jack daniels wrote:
>> If you don't have overlapping TE tunnels ? what is meaning of this
>
> If none of your MPLS TE LSPs use the same underlying links you will
> never have any need for prioritisation, and thus never have any need for
> AutoBandwidth.
>
> An example: We (not ISP but enterprise) currently only use MPLS TE for
> redundant L2 pseudowires that _have_ to use different paths in the
> network. If we didn't use MPLS TE (in this case "explicit-path") we
> would risk that two different pseudowires that were supposed to be a
> redundant pair took the same path. In this case there's nothing to be
> gained from AutoBandwidth.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>