On 10/21/2011 11:26 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
We do this within our core network to support load balancing
for non-equal-cost distances (towards peers or customers),
even though bandwidth within the core is the same; just like
your case.
That's promising. Having tried it on a test router, it seems a config like:
int Tun1xx
ip unnumbered Loopback1
tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
tunnel destination Rxx
tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce
tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute metric absolute 1
! Just for example, obviously
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic
...in particular, the "autoroute metric absolute" is needed to fix the
metrics so that the tunnels are equal-cost, yes?
Do I want "autoroute announce"? Since the routes I care about are BGP,
the only thing I need to tunnels for is to force the IGP cost to the
iBGP loopbacks to equal.
In terms of my original ascii diagram, will the presence of these
tunnels on R4 induce R5 to send traffic upwards to R4 (and via the
tunnels) when it might previously have sent it directly? Or are the
tunnels "local" to each router and not advertised into IGP?
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
