Re: [j-nsp] Fate sharing between BGP and RSVP

2016-09-14 Thread Chuck Anderson
See also: http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos15.1/topics/usage-guidelines/mpls-configuring-traffic-engineering-for-lsps.html On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:20:17AM +0200, Dragan Jovicic wrote: > So you want BGP to resolve routes using only inet.3 table which contains > RSVP routes, and

Re: [j-nsp] Fate sharing between BGP and RSVP

2016-09-14 Thread kworm83
If you make your LSP with a strict path where it will not use the other IGP path then you can use a forwarding table export policy to force the LSP as a strict next next hop: policy-statement name-of-policy { term term-1 { from ; then { install-nexthop strict lsp

Re: [j-nsp] Fate sharing between BGP and RSVP

2016-09-14 Thread Dragan Jovicic
So you want BGP to resolve routes using only inet.3 table which contains RSVP routes, and not inet.0. https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos15.1/topics/example/vpns-layer-3-route-resolution-route-reflector.html Dragan On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Rob Foehl

Re: [j-nsp] Fate sharing between BGP and RSVP

2016-09-13 Thread Rob Foehl
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Chuck Anderson wrote: I guess I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish then. Ttaffic engineering specific routes is exactly what RSVP is used for. The MPLS path should be torn down if there is no available RSVP-capable route. Did you try just not configuring

Re: [j-nsp] Fate sharing between BGP and RSVP

2016-09-13 Thread Chuck Anderson
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 06:38:10PM -0400, Rob Foehl wrote: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > >Could you just use a strict MPLS path with an ERO? > > Hmm, doesn't look like it... I just tried configuring an explicit > path LSP to nowhere on a lab box, and it didn't install

Re: [j-nsp] Fate sharing between BGP and RSVP

2016-09-13 Thread Rob Foehl
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Chuck Anderson wrote: Could you just use a strict MPLS path with an ERO? Hmm, doesn't look like it... I just tried configuring an explicit path LSP to nowhere on a lab box, and it didn't install anything into the routing table without the LSP up. Either way, a strict

Re: [j-nsp] Fate sharing between BGP and RSVP

2016-09-13 Thread Chuck Anderson
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 05:42:37PM -0400, Rob Foehl wrote: > Assuming a typical IBGP session built between loopbacks, is there > any relatively clean way to tie that session state to RSVP-signaled > LSPs between the same pair of routers? > > I'm trying to work around a case where the IGP knows

[j-nsp] Fate sharing between BGP and RSVP

2016-09-13 Thread Rob Foehl
Assuming a typical IBGP session built between loopbacks, is there any relatively clean way to tie that session state to RSVP-signaled LSPs between the same pair of routers? I'm trying to work around a case where the IGP knows about another path between the two that doesn't carry any MPLS