[c-nsp] mpls traffic-eng tunnel preemption

[Vitkovsky, Adam]

Try to replace the "protect 1" with "2" and use the priorities you've outlined
Though be aware that the failover will be slower 
as the second path is not pre-established and would only be used after the first path fails and attempt to re-establish the first path will fail

interface Tunnel12
  tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 explicit name PATH-VIA-10G
  tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 2 explicit name PATH-VIA-1G 




adam

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Artyom Viklenko
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:02 AM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] mpls traffic-eng tunnel preemption

Hi, All!

I have 10g link and 1g link between some two routers.
Several te-tunnels configured for EoMPLS transports.
10g link is the main path. One te-tunnel (say Tun11) configured for
use 1g link using explicit path through it. Another several
te-tunnels use 10g link. All works fine. Now I need to
acive the folowing:

in case of 10g link failure, I need to shutdown tun11 and
reroute another tunnel Tun12 through 1g link. After restoring
of 10g link all tunnels should come up again via their initial
paths.


At first step:

interface Tunnel11
  description TE-Tun via 1G
  ip unnumbered Loopback0
  load-interval 30
  no snmp trap link-status
  mpls ip
  tunnel destination x.x.x.x
  tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
  tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 explicit name PATH-VIA-1G
!
interface Tunnel12
  description TE-Tun via 10G
  ip unnumbered Loopback0
  load-interval 30
  no snmp trap link-status
  mpls ip
  tunnel destination x.x.x.x
  tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
  tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 explicit name PATH-VIA-10G
  tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option protect 1 explicit name PATH-VIA-1G
!

But in this case, if 10g link fails both tunnels will use 1g link.

I have 'ip rsvp bandwidth 800000' on underlying 1g interface.
I'm try to add

interface Tunnel11
   tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 750000
   tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7
!
interface Tunnel12
   tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 750000
   tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 6 6
!

But after this, Tun11 goes down.

I think that is something wrong in my assumption.
LSP signalling for Tun12's  path-option protect preempts Tun11
even no real payload in it.

Is it expected? How can I achive my goal?

Thanks in advance!



-- 
            Sincerely yours,
                             Artyom Viklenko.
-------------------------------------------------------
artem at aws-net.org.ua | http://www.aws-net.org.ua/~artem
artem at viklenko.net   | JID: artem at jabber.aws-net.org.ua
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve   -  http://www.freebsd.org
_______________________________________________
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/