[c-nsp] mpls traffic-eng tunnel preemption

[Artyom Viklenko]

06.10.2011 11:41, Vitkovsky, Adam пишет:
> 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
>

Got this. At least both tunnels up and running.
Will wait till 10g fails at some point of time... hope forever. :)

Thanks!

>
>
>
> 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