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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Artyom Viklenko Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:02 AM To: [email protected] 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. ------------------------------------------------------- [email protected] | http://www.aws-net.org.ua/~artem [email protected] | JID: [email protected] FreeBSD: The Power to Serve - http://www.freebsd.org _______________________________________________ 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/
