Hi, On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 09:06:02AM -0600, Cory Ayers wrote: > > the explicit-path configured lists the loopback interfaces of all the > > routers I want the tunnel to touch, in sequence, with no gaps. Labels > > for > > the loopbacks are there, as for the endpoint: > > Have you tried using the point-to-point next-hop (as it would appear in a > traceroute) rather than loopbacks for each hop? > > ip explicit-path name FOO > next-address (P2P hop 1)
Haven't tried that, as we don't distribute labels for non-Loopback20
addresses (all our normal traffic runs untagged, only EoMPLS between
specific Loopbacks and L3 VPNs with iBGP between Loopback20 has labels).
But indeed. That definitely *changes* the error messages I get :-) and
I think now I'm missing "more interfaces with RSVP on".
Thanks for the hint. I had never considered using non-labeled next-hop
addresses...
[..]
> You'll still need mpls and traffic-eng tunnels configured on each
> interface of the label path. You can verify with show mpls interfaces.
Yeah, figured that one out, that "mpls traffic-eng tun" is needed on
all MPLS-enabled interfaces (... that would carry this tunnel). Need
to test that next, with a shorter path, don't want to touch all the
production network right now.
> And then there's the IGP.
Uh, what exactly?
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpqDrke94EGD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
