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: [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/
