[c-nsp] forced path MPLS tunnel question

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 09:06:02AM -0600, Cory Ayers wrote:
> > the explicit-path configured lists the loopback interfaces of all the
> > routers I want the tunnel to touch, in sequence, with no gaps.  Labels
> > for
> > the loopbacks are there, as for the endpoint:
> 
> Have you tried using the point-to-point next-hop (as it would appear in a traceroute) rather than loopbacks for each hop?
> 
> ip explicit-path name FOO
>   next-address (P2P hop 1)

Haven't tried that, as we don't distribute labels for non-Loopback20
addresses (all our normal traffic runs untagged, only EoMPLS between
specific Loopbacks and L3 VPNs with iBGP between Loopback20 has labels).

But indeed.  That definitely *changes* the error messages I get :-) and
I think now I'm missing "more interfaces with RSVP on".

Thanks for the hint.  I had never considered using non-labeled next-hop
addresses...


[..]
> You'll still need mpls and traffic-eng tunnels configured on each 
> interface of the label path.  You can verify with show mpls interfaces.  

Yeah, figured that one out, that "mpls traffic-eng tun" is needed on
all MPLS-enabled interfaces (... that would carry this tunnel).  Need
to test that next, with a shorter path, don't want to touch all the
production network right now.

> And then there's the IGP.

Uh, what exactly?

gert

-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20120117/a803b091/attachment.sig>