Re: Preferring RSVP for only one l2circuit.
On 27/May/16 15:46, Mohamed Kamal wrote: > tried this Timothy, and the RSVP didn't appear in the inet.3. Failed to work! Best option is to create a separate Loopback interface on each router, and use that to signal the RSVP tunnels. It's the only way to keep your LDP and RSVP tunnels from mingling with each other for EoMPLS circuits you want to nail on a given path. Mark.
Re: Preferring RSVP for only one l2circuit.
tried this Timothy, and the RSVP didn't appear in the inet.3. Failed to work! - Original Message - From: "Timothy Creswick" <timothy.cresw...@vorboss.com> To: "Mohamed Kamal" <mka...@noor.net>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:30:08 PM Subject: RE: Preferring RSVP for only one l2circuit. > I have increased the preference of the RSVP, and it has been taken out of the > inet.3, so the l2circuit didn't prefer > the RSVP path anymore! Just add "no-install-to-address" to the LSP.
RE: Preferring RSVP for only one l2circuit.
> I have increased the preference of the RSVP, and it has been taken out of the > inet.3, so the l2circuit didn't prefer > the RSVP path anymore! Just add "no-install-to-address" to the LSP.
Preferring RSVP for only one l2circuit.
I have a full-mesh LDP LSPs between my MX-104 routers, however, between two specific routers and on the same loopbacks I configured RSVP LSP to be used as the transport for only one l2circuit and no more. The problem is, when the RSVP gets signaled, it gets installed in the inet.3 and gets preferred over any other LDP LSP. So all the traffic destined to RSVP tail-end will prefer the RSVP over the LDP. I have increased the preference of the RSVP, and it has been taken out of the inet.3, so the l2circuit didn't prefer the RSVP path anymore! Do anyone has a working configuration for this? or should I configured another loopback address on every pair of routers for the RSVP signalling? -- mk
