[j-nsp] BGP/MPLS Question MX Platform

[Saku Ytti]

On 3 August 2016 at 18:10, Dean B <jnprlist at gmail.com> wrote:

Hey,

> Thanks for everyone's suggestions.  RSVP-TE looks like it would be the
> cleanest solution.  I'm still a little lost on how that would be
> implemented.  Saku in what you are suggesting would the following be
> correct:
>
> ISIS with traffic engineering enabled on all the ring links
> RSVP enabled on all the ring links
> LSPs with normal priority configured on each node to every other node for
> BGP to use
> LSPs configured for l2vpn use on each node that requires them and set them
> to a high reservation priority

I essentially have three options:

a) use SPT, where the expensive link isn't used, put L2VPN with
segment routing on the expensive link
b) use SPT, where the expensive link isn't used, put L2VPN with RSVP
on the expensive link
c) use SPT, where the expensive link is used, have all traffic in RSVP
tunnels, so that non L2VPN traffic will fall-off the SPT path, due to
lack of capacity

If the low-cost SPT breaks down, and only high-cost link is possible,
what is your desired outcome?

1) blackhole 100% of traffic that would switch to the high-cost link
2) use QoS so that all existing traffic on high-cost link works, but
also all other demand is moved there, and pushed through as much as
possible

For 2) all of a-c can do it.
For 1) you need c




>
> So in case of a failure of one of the low-cost links the high reservation
> priority on the l2vpn LSPs will only allow them to form on the expensive
> path and the BGP LSPs will just be down?  What will keep BGP from just using
> the IGP best path at that point?




-- 
  ++ytti