The part where you said what the RSTP convergence time was got lost
somewhere. Just using a tunnel primary/secondary paths may not be
quicker than RSTP. If you use FRR protection as well it may result in
less traffic loss than RSTP. Some vendors have different behavior
when the failure is on the actual ingress node than a transit node, so
you may want to investigate that if you are using FRR.
Phil
On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Walter Keen wrote:
I've got a jitter-sensitive application (voice DS3 over some RAD
equipment) that we are testing, and I've got a rapid spanning tree
ring through the below network. We have it down to during a
spanning tree switchover (tested by adjusting the rapid-pvst cost on
the trunk interface), and curious if people feel if EoMPLS with a
mpls-TE tunnel would provide faster convergence in case of a
failure, given a fairly vanilla OSPF as the IGP, and 2 explicit
paths defined (A-D, then A-B-D), as the endpoints of this
application are at A and D.
I think I'm going to start testing this tomorrow or next week, but
curious if anyone had any thoughts or suggestions. HW is 7600/
RSP720 at A and B, 7600/SUP720 at D and C, all with 6724sfp cards
for core-facing interfaces, and 6148 card (10/100) for RAD-facing
interfaces.
Network looks like
A-------------------D
\------B-----------/
\----------C-----/
Or, A has a connection to D, A has a connection to B and C, B has a
connection to D, C has a connection to D.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
