Hi Brad, I've been requesting this feature for a long time. It is possible using VPLS.
A partial work around is to set a COS value on your VLL and a matching COS value on your LSPs. A VLL will try to use an LSP with a matching COS value. One problem can be that if an LSP is down your VLL could end up taking another unintended path. Cheers. Mitchell ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad Fleming [mailto:[email protected]] To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 06:29:43 +1100 Subject: Re: [f-nsp] TE for the same VLL peers > Dan, > > Thanks very much for your response. Very much appreciated. > > We've steered clear of the VPLS model for these services to avoid > learning all the MAC addresses. Eliminating VLL as an option will > force us into a cost/benefit for these services; which isn't a bad > thing, just means we need to get out of the test lab and into CAM / > memory planning mode. > > Do you happen to know if Brocade plans to allow VLLs a similar > configuration? > > At any rate, thanks again for the reply! > > -brad > > > On Mar 31, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Dan Spataro wrote: > > > Brad, > > > > You cannot force a VLL to take a specific LSP. You need to convert > > your VLLs to VPLS, then you will be able to specify a LSP for the > > VPLS to use. So for your DR traffic you would need to create a LSP > > with a primary path over the indirect links then reference that LSP > > in the VPLS config for your DR VLAN or interface. > > > > Here is an example (you can also create secondary paths and use FRR > > for failover). > > > > > > > > path DR_traffic_path > > to x.x.x.x > > to x.x.x.x > > enable > > > > lsp DR_traffic > > to x.x.x.x > > primary DR_traffic_path > > enable > > > > > > vpls DR_traffic xxx > > vpls-peer x.x.x.x lsp DR_traffic > > vlan xxx > > tagged ethe x/x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected] > > ] On Behalf Of Brad Fleming > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:42 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [f-nsp] TE for the same VLL peers > > > > Hello all, > > > > If you have two VLLs both pointed at the same remote LER is it > > possible to force one VLL over an indirect path while allowing the > > other to use a direct path? I don't see options to specify an LSP > > when provisioning a VLL and TAC informed me that a VLL must be > > provisioned to the remote router-ID. > > > > In our environment we have two routers that handle several VLLs. > > Some of the VLLs are of a critical nature (voice) while others are > > much lower priority (ie: DR data backups). We'd like to allow the > > voice traffic to travel a direct (but narrow) path while forcing the > > DR data down a long (but wide) path. > > > > Any help, suggestions, or insight would be appreciated and thanks in > > advance! > > > > -brad > > _______________________________________________ > > foundry-nsp mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp > > _______________________________________________ > foundry-nsp mailing list > [email protected] > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp > _______________________________________________ foundry-nsp mailing list [email protected] http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
